Fahid Rahman v Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/a Kent Attorneys

In the case of Fahid Rahman v Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/a Kent Attorneys, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondents. The dispute centred around the applicant's entitlement to recover professional costs incurred by self-represented solicitors. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus was on the legal principles governing the recovery of such costs, particularly under the Supreme Court Act 2005 (NSW) and the application of the Chorley Exception in administrative law contexts.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claim for the recovery of professional costs constituted a jurisdictional error that was apparent on the face of the record. Additionally, it had to consider whether the Chorley Exception applied, which allows for the recovery of professional costs by self-represented solicitors in certain circumstances. The respondents argued that the applicant's claim did not meet the criteria for a jurisdictional error and that the Chorley Exception should not be extended to cover the situation at hand.

The court found that the applicant's claim for the recovery of professional costs did not amount to a jurisdictional error that was apparent on the face of the record. It further held that the Chorley Exception did not apply to the facts of the case. The court reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision-maker had failed to take into account a relevant consideration or had taken into account an irrelevant consideration. Consequently, the applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also considered the issue of costs and made an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.