Coshott v Spencer & Ors; Coshott v Spencer & Ors

In the High Court of Australia, Ronald Michael Coshott applied for orders to review the taxation of certain items in bills of costs allowed by the Taxing Officer. These costs related to proceedings in which Mr Coshott was the applicant for special leave to appeal, and subsequently the appellant, against Mr Spencer. The dispute centred on whether Mr Spencer, a solicitor and principal of an incorporated legal practice, Kejus Pty Ltd (trading as Spencer & Co Legal), was entitled to recover professional costs for work he performed in the proceedings, given that Kejus was the solicitor on the record.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Spencer was liable to pay Kejus for the professional work performed, and consequently, whether Mr Spencer was entitled to an indemnity from Mr Coshott for those costs. Mr Coshott argued that Mr Spencer had not engaged Kejus under a costs agreement, and therefore had no liability to pay Kejus for the services rendered. A secondary submission suggested that if Kejus was the solicitor on the record, and not Mr Spencer personally, then Kejus was not entitled to bill for costs, meaning Mr Spencer would not be liable to Kejus and thus not entitled to an indemnity.

The Court dismissed the applications, reasoning that the proceedings had consistently proceeded on the basis that Mr Spencer had retained Kejus under a costs agreement and was liable to pay for the services rendered. The Court noted that the Full Court had previously revoked special leave to appeal on the basis that there was slender evidence of a costs agreement, but that this did not permit the Taxing Officer or the Court on review to proceed on a contrary basis. The Court also observed that the issue of whether a solicitor acting through an incorporated legal practice could recover costs had not been resolved by the Court of Appeal or in the subsequent High Court decision of *Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow*. The Court found it sufficient that the professional services were performed by Mr Spencer, and the quantification of their value should proceed on that footing.

The applications for an order to review were dismissed with costs.