Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson (Costs)

The case of Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson involved a dispute concerning the costs of a summons for injunctive orders brought by the Council against Rollinson. The Council sought to restrain Rollinson from practising as a barrister without a valid practising certificate. Rollinson filed an appearance in response to the summons, thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. The central issue before the court was whether costs should be awarded to the Council after Rollinson's submission of an appearance. The court had to determine the appropriate allocation of costs given Rollinson's submission to the jurisdiction.

The court considered the principles governing costs in such circumstances, particularly focusing on the concept of whether an appearance constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction that could warrant an award of costs. The Council argued that despite the submission, Rollinson's actions necessitated the injunctive relief, and thus, costs should be awarded for the entire proceedings. Rollinson contended that filing an appearance should mitigate the costs awarded. The court weighed these arguments and the relevant legal principles before reaching its decision.

After examining the submissions and the applicable legal principles, the court concluded that the costs should be awarded to the Council for the entire proceedings. The court found that despite Rollinson's submission, the nature and necessity of the injunctive orders justified the award of costs in full. The court determined that Rollinson's actions had still required the Council to pursue legal action, and thus, the costs for the entire proceedings were warranted. The court's decision was based on the significant steps taken by the Council to address Rollinson's unauthorised practice, despite the submission of appearance.

The final orders of the court were that costs were to be awarded to the Council for the whole of the proceedings. This decision reflected the court's view that the Council's action was justified and necessary, and that the costs incurred should be borne by Rollinson in full.