Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the Act

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an application for leave to appeal filed by Emmanuel Tam Ezekiel-Hart, the applicant, against an interlocutory judgment concerning costs. The respondents were the Council of the Law Society of the ACT and the President of the Law Society of the ACT, with the Attorney-General of the ACT intervening. The applicant sought leave to appeal an order made by Kennett J on 3 June 2022, which followed an earlier judgment delivered on 25 May 2022. The dispute arose from the applicant's unsuccessful application in the primary proceedings, leading to a costs order against him.

The court was required to determine whether leave to appeal was necessary, considering whether the judgment under appeal was interlocutory or final, and whether the application was made out of time. Additionally, the court had to assess the grounds for granting leave to appeal, particularly in relation to a costs order, and the appropriate test to be applied, which generally requires exceptional circumstances to interfere with a costs decision within the discretion of the lower court. The applicant also raised concerns about the fairness of the costs order, specifically the award of indemnity costs.

The court reasoned that regardless of whether the judgment was considered interlocutory or final, leave to appeal was required because the application was effectively out of time. The court adopted the principle that appeals solely on costs orders require exceptional circumstances, citing *Jenkins v Lanfranchi*. While acknowledging the applicant was self-represented, the court noted his legal qualifications and indicated he would be held to a standard close to that of a legally represented party, with some allowance for his position. The court also considered the applicant's arguments regarding the respondents' alleged fault in initiating the proceedings and his partial success on jurisdictional issues, but ultimately found these insufficient to warrant granting leave.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application, with leave granted for parties to seek a different costs order within seven days, to be decided on the papers.