Bechara trading as Bechara and Company v Bates

The case of *Bechara trading as Bechara and Company v Bates* concerned an application for costs made by the respondent, who was a barrister acting in person. The applicant sought to challenge the respondent's entitlement to recover costs for work performed by himself as counsel, as well as for solicitors' costs and disbursements. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Beazley P, Meagher and Payne JJA.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the definition of "costs" in section 3 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) abrogated the *Chorley* exception, and consequently, whether that exception, which allows for the recovery of costs by a party acting in person who is a solicitor, extended to a barrister acting in person. The respondent sought a gross sum costs order encompassing both his own professional fees as counsel and the costs and disbursements incurred by his solicitors.

The Court of Appeal held that the *Chorley* exception, which permits a solicitor acting in person to recover costs for their professional work, was not abrogated by the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW). Furthermore, the Court determined that the rationale behind the *Chorley* exception, namely that a solicitor acting in person should not be out of pocket for their professional services, applied equally to a barrister acting in person. The Court reasoned that to deny a barrister the ability to recover their professional fees when acting in person would create an inequitable outcome, as they would be foregoing their income for the benefit of the litigation.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal made orders that a lump-sum costs order in the sum of $12,000, payable by the applicant to the respondent, be made pursuant to section 98 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW), and that this sum be paid within 28 days.