Posted on

The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 6

6. Illustrations in the Costs Space

In this section of the paper, some recent cases in which the inherent or analogous implied jurisdiction has been resorted to are considered in detail.

Re Jabe (2021)

Re Jabe; Kennedy v Schwarcz [2021] VSC 106 is a decision of Justice McMillan in the course of considering whether to approve the settlement of a testators family maintenance claim.[1] It was cited with approval in Hartnett v Bell [2023] NSWCA 244 at [123]. Continue reading “The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 6”

Posted on

The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 5

5. The Costs Court is given certain powers of the Supreme Court

Section 17D(1)(h) gives the Costs Court any jurisdiction given to it under any Act (including the Supreme Court Act) or by the Supreme Court’s rules, a provision which might seem at first glance to be redundant, but which might be intended to avoid arguments that procedural rules are inapt to be read as granting jurisdiction.[1]

A. Section 17D(2) (ancillary powers)

As Bell J observed in Owerhall v Bolton & Swan Pty Ltd, s. 17D(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 gives the Costs Court such powers of the Court (defined to mean the Supreme Court) as are necessary to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction. This can be described as providing the Court’s ‘ancillary powers’. Continue reading “The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 5”

Posted on

The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 4

4.  The Supreme Court and the Costs Court are different

The Taxing Master was an officer of the Supreme Court.  But the Costs Court is something different from the Supreme Court, even though it is said by the amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1986 by which it came into existence to be created within the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.[1]

Its powers are spelt out in s. 17D(1): Continue reading “The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 4”

Posted on

The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 3

3. Other courts

The supervisory jurisdiction is often spoken of as an inherent jurisdiction of superior courts of record.  So other states’ and territories’ Supreme Courts would have the same jurisdiction, albeit more amenable to statutory modification / influence than the Victorian Court’s jurisdiction.  Those other courts still jealously guard their jurisdictions against statutory incursion, though, holding that only statutes which prohibit a particular course will affect the inherent jurisdiction.[1]

Continue reading “The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 3”

Posted on

The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 2

2. The inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677 is a decision of the High Court in its original jurisdiction, constituted by Sir Owen Dixon who observed at 678-679 that ‘The superior Courts of law and equity possess a jurisdiction to ascertain, by taxation, moderation, or fixation, the costs, charges, and disbursements claimed by an attorney or solicitor from his client,’ and that there were three sources of that jurisdiction:

    • That ‘founded upon the relation to the Court of attorneys and solicitors considered as its officers.[1] This jurisdiction … enables it to regulate the charges made for work done by attorneys and solicitors of the Court in that capacity, and to prevent exorbitant demands.’
    • That to determine by taxation or analogous proceeding the amount of costs whenever a contested claim for costs comes before the Court which it has jurisdiction to determine.[2]
    • The statutory jurisdiction (now found in the Legal Profession Uniform Law).

Continue reading “The Supreme Courts’ inherent supervisory jurisdiction (lawyers’ fees) Part 2”

Posted on

The inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts summarised by the NSW Court of Appeal

My case note of Hartnett v Bell [2023] NSWCA 244 is here. The purpose of this sister post is to reproduce the summary of the law relating to the superior courts’ inherent jurisdiction to supervise the charging of and discipline its officers which Bell CJ set out at [123]:

‘Several statements of authority may be noted at the outset of the consideration in relation to the Court’s inherent and supervisory jurisdiction:

1. The Court’s inherent jurisdiction “can be exercised in any circumstances where the requirements of justice demand it and thus cannot be restricted to closed and defined categories of cases”: McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 104 at [178] (McGuirk); Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1 at 16; [1995] HCA 40 (Reid); Tringali v Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Ltd [1966] 1 NSWR 354; (1966) 66 SR (NSW) 335 at 344; Continue reading “The inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts summarised by the NSW Court of Appeal”