Equititrust Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Tucker

Equititrust Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Tucker involved a dispute over the costs incurred in a litigation process between the plaintiff, Equititrust, and the Tucker defendants. The Tucker defendants, including Mr. Tucker, a solicitor, successfully challenged the statement of claim filed by Equititrust and were ordered to be paid a significant portion of the costs by Equititrust. The costs assessor allowed certain professional fees claimed by Mr. Tucker, who appeared for himself and the second defendant. Equititrust applied for a review of the costs assessor's decision, arguing that the assessor failed to appropriately apply the decision in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow, which found that the Chorley exception was not part of the common law of Australia. The Tucker defendants argued that the decision in Bell Lawyers was not applicable as the costs were sought pursuant to a legislative regime.

The court considered whether the costs assessor erred in law by including the professional fees incurred by Mr. Tucker in the award of costs. The court examined the decision in Bell Lawyers, which held that the Chorley exception was not part of the common law of Australia, and found that the exception was inconsistent with the equality of all persons before the court. The court concluded that the costs assessor had erred in law by including the professional fees claimed by Mr. Tucker in the award of costs. The court set aside certain paragraphs of the costs assessor's decision and varied the sums awarded, referring the matter back to the costs assessor for reconsideration. The court also ordered the Tucker defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

In summary, the court held that the costs assessor erred in law by including the professional fees claimed by Mr. Tucker in the award of costs. The court set aside certain paragraphs of the costs assessor's decision and varied the sums awarded, referring the matter back to the costs assessor for reconsideration. The court ordered the Tucker defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.