Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow
Case
•
[2019] HCA 29
•4 September 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29
[2019] HCA 29
4 September 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd against a decision concerning costs awarded to the first respondent, Ms Pentelow, a barrister who had acted for herself in litigation. The central dispute revolved around whether Ms Pentelow, as a self-represented litigant who was a legal practitioner, could recover costs for the professional time she spent on her own case.
The legal issues before the Court were whether the exception to the general rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs for their own time, commonly known as the "Chorley exception," extends to barristers, and whether this exception is recognised as part of the common law of Australia. The Court was required to determine the historical basis and current applicability of the Chorley exception in the Australian legal context.
The Court reasoned that costs are fundamentally creatures of statute, with the principles governing their award developed by courts over time. The general principle of costs being awarded by way of indemnity for professional legal costs incurred is a judicial creation. The Chorley exception, which allows a legal practitioner to be indemnified at a professional rate for time spent acting on their own behalf, was introduced into the common law system by English courts at a time when Australian courts were bound to follow English Court of Appeal decisions on materially identical statutes. However, following the termination of appeals to the Privy Council, Australian courts are no longer bound by such decisions. The Court concluded that there was no compelling reason to continue to recognise the Chorley exception as part of the common law of Australia, particularly as it applied to barristers.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were set aside. In their place, the summons for judicial review was dismissed, and Ms Pentelow was ordered to pay Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd's costs in the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court.
The legal issues before the Court were whether the exception to the general rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs for their own time, commonly known as the "Chorley exception," extends to barristers, and whether this exception is recognised as part of the common law of Australia. The Court was required to determine the historical basis and current applicability of the Chorley exception in the Australian legal context.
The Court reasoned that costs are fundamentally creatures of statute, with the principles governing their award developed by courts over time. The general principle of costs being awarded by way of indemnity for professional legal costs incurred is a judicial creation. The Chorley exception, which allows a legal practitioner to be indemnified at a professional rate for time spent acting on their own behalf, was introduced into the common law system by English courts at a time when Australian courts were bound to follow English Court of Appeal decisions on materially identical statutes. However, following the termination of appeals to the Privy Council, Australian courts are no longer bound by such decisions. The Court concluded that there was no compelling reason to continue to recognise the Chorley exception as part of the common law of Australia, particularly as it applied to barristers.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were set aside. In their place, the summons for judicial review was dismissed, and Ms Pentelow was ordered to pay Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd's costs in the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rotstein Commercial Lawyers Pty Ltd v Sackl (No 2) [[2022]] VCC 585
Cases Citing This Decision
349
Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic
[2025] HCA 2
Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic
[2025] HCA 2
Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic
[2025] HCA 2
Cases Cited
45
Statutory Material Cited
1
Cachia v Hanes
[1994] HCA 14
Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2)
[1976] HCA 57
Cachia v Hanes
[1994] HCA 14
Cited Sections