Barristers' Board v Young Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barristers’ Board v Young [2002] QCA 85

PARTIES:

BARRISTERS’ BOARD

(applicant)
v

TARA VIRGINIA YOUNG

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8646 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Disciplinary Proceedings – Further Order

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 7 December 2001

Further Order delivered 21 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers.

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J

Further Order of the Court

FURTHER ORDER:

The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – applicant pursued an order that the respondent pay its costs following judgment – whether the respondent approached the matter unreasonably – whether the order would impose an intolerable financial burden and whether, if an order were imposed, it should be limited in amount – although financial burden is regrettable, there is no reason to depart from the usual course that the applicant’s costs are to be paid by the respondent.

COUNSEL:

JK Bond SC, with DA Kelly, for the applicant

MJ Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hemming & Hart for the applicant

Bernard Bradley & Associates for the respondent

THE COURT: Following the delivery on 7 December 2001 of the judgment of the court, which did not deal with the issue of costs, the applicant pursued an order that the respondent pay its costs, an order for costs having been sought in the application filed on 25 September 2001.

The applicant’s contention is that costs should in the ordinary way follow the event, the respondent having at all stages resisted the order ultimately made, being the order sought by the applicant.

We have received written submissions in relation to costs from the respondent. Those submissions contend, essentially, that the respondent did not approach the matter unreasonably, and that a costs order would impose an intolerable financial burden upon her. Further, if a costs order is to be made, the respondent asks that it be limited in amount.

The financial burden which the respondent will suffer is certainly regrettable, but neither that consequence nor the other matters upon which the respondent relies warrants departure from the usual position, that the costs of the applicant be paid by the respondent.

There will be an order that the respondent pays the applicant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Barristers’ Board versus Young, the court was presented with an application for an order that the respondent, Young, pay the applicant’s costs following judgment. The Board had successfully obtained an order for professional misconduct against Young, and sought costs from the respondent. The legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the respondent had approached the matter unreasonably, whether an order for costs would impose an intolerable financial burden on the respondent, and if so, whether the order should be limited in amount. The court needed to determine if these factors warranted a departure from the usual course that the applicant’s costs are to be paid by the respondent.

The court found that while the financial burden on the respondent was regrettable, it did not constitute a reason to depart from the standard practice of ordering costs to be paid by the respondent. The court held that the respondent's approach to the proceedings was unreasonable, given the clear findings against him. Furthermore, the court did not find that the imposition of costs would result in an intolerable financial burden, and thus, it was not necessary to limit the amount of the order. The court adhered to the principle that costs should follow the event, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct warranted the imposition of costs, and ordered Young to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding. The court emphasised the importance of professional conduct and the need to uphold the authority of the Board in disciplinary matters. The decision serves as a reminder that unreasonable conduct in legal proceedings can have financial consequences, and that the usual course of ordering costs to be paid by the respondent should be followed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The court's final order was that Young pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, as assessed or agreed, or in the absence of agreement within 14 days, to be taxed by the Registrar. This decision reinforces the principle that costs follow the event, and that unreasonable conduct in legal proceedings can result in financial liability for the respondent.

Barristers' Board v Young

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Barristers’ Board v Young [2002] QCA 85
PARTIES:	BARRISTERS’ BOARD (applicant) v TARA VIRGINIA YOUNG (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8646 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Disciplinary Proceedings – Further Order
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 7 December 2001 Further Order delivered 21 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers.
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Further Order of the Court
FURTHER ORDER:	The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – applicant pursued an order that the respondent pay its costs following judgment – whether the respondent approached the matter unreasonably – whether the order would impose an intolerable financial burden and whether, if an order were imposed, it should be limited in amount – although financial burden is regrettable, there is no reason to depart from the usual course that the applicant’s costs are to be paid by the respondent.
COUNSEL:	JK Bond SC, with DA Kelly, for the applicant MJ Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hemming & Hart for the applicant Bernard Bradley & Associates for the respondent