Dennis v Joukhador

In the Federal Court, Dennis brought an action against Joukhador seeking damages for personal injury. Joukhador sought summary dismissal of the claim on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious, and an order for security for costs. The court was required to decide whether the claim was frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether to dismiss it summarily. The court also needed to determine the appropriate amount of security for costs and whether the abolition of the Chorley exception affected the ability of employees of incorporated legal practices to recover costs.

The court found that the claim was frivolous or vexatious because the solicitor had no right to the costs held on trust for the client, and there was no reasonable cause of action by the solicitor. The court also found that the legal entity would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so, and granted an order for security for costs up to the conclusion of the filing of evidence. The court considered the Chorley exception and found that its abolition did not prevent employees of incorporated legal practices from recovering costs, as the exception only applied to cases where the employed solicitor was acting in their own right rather than on behalf of their employer.

The court ordered that the claim be summarily dismissed and that security for costs be paid up to the conclusion of the filing of evidence. The court also found that the Chorley exception was no longer applicable, but that employees of incorporated legal practices could still recover costs in appropriate circumstances. The court did not make any orders in relation to the Chorley exception, as it was not relevant to the circumstances of the case.