Law Society v Ford (No 3) - [2025] ACTSCFC 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

FULL COURT

Case Title:	Law Society v Ford (No 3)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSCFC 1
Hearing Date:	Decided on the papers
Decision Date:	27 March 2025
Before:	Mossop and McWilliam JJ, Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Decision:	(1) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where defendant struck off roll of solicitors – where plaintiff wholly successful in the proceedings – where plaintiff had made settlement offers – where defendant sought not to pay plaintiff’s costs – where defendant pointed to range of factors in the history of this and other proceedings – defendant’s submissions contained arguments that either were scandalous, attempted to relitigate resolved matters, had no proven foundation, or indicated lack of understanding of judicial process – plaintiff’s choice of jurisdiction not inappropriate – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where arguments raised to depart from the usual rule as to costs – argument as to appropriateness of plaintiff’s choice of forum, namely the ACAT, where plaintiff could have commenced proceedings in Supreme Court – argument alleging defendant’s own impecuniosity – argument that costs in past related proceedings encompass all or much of subsequent proceedings – arguments rejected
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1721 Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), s 27
Cases Cited:	Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Giles (No 2) [2020] ACTSCFC 2 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Law Society (ACT) v Bangura [2024] ACTSCFC 1; 21 ACTLR 268 Law Society of the ACT v Stubbs [2017] ACTSCFC 3 Law Society v Ford (No 2) [2024] ACTSCFC 2 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; 265 CLR 164 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 Oshlack v Richmond River Shire Council (1994) 82 LGERA 236 The Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Lester [2022] ACTSCFC 1 The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Hoyle [2020] ACTSCFC 3 The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Hoyle (No 2) [2020] ACTSCFC 4 The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Davey [2019] ACTSCFC 2; 14 ACTLR 159 Wu v Wu (No 3) [2024] ACTCA 35
Parties:	The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory ( Plaintiff) Hugh Russell Ford ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel DA Moujalli ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendant)
Solicitors Thomson Geer ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendant)
File Number:	SC 10 of 2024

THE COURT:

Introduction

1․These reasons relate to the determination of the question of costs after the Full Court of the Supreme Court ordered that the defendant, Hugh Russell Ford, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners kept under s 27 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT): Law Society v Ford (No 2) [2024] ACTSCFC 2 (Ford (No 2)).

Evidence and submissions

2․The plaintiff…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Law Society v Ford (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ACTSCFC 1
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Law Society v Ford (No 3), the Law Society of New South Wales brought proceedings against Mr Ford, a former solicitor, in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales (ACAT). The Law Society sought an order that Mr Ford should pay their costs following his successful application to have him struck off the roll of solicitors. Mr Ford sought to contest the costs order, arguing various factors to justify his refusal to pay the Law Society's costs, including the choice of jurisdiction and his impecuniosity.

The central legal issue was whether the Law Society was entitled to an order for costs against Mr Ford, given his successful application to be struck off and his contentions that he should not be liable for the costs. The Law Society argued that their choice of the ACAT as the forum for the proceedings was appropriate, and that Mr Ford's arguments were either scandalous, attempted to relitigate resolved matters, had no proven foundation, or indicated a lack of understanding of the judicial process.

The court found that the Law Society's choice of jurisdiction was not inappropriate and rejected Mr Ford's arguments as being either scandalous, an attempt to relitigate resolved matters, lacking proven foundation, or indicating a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The court held that Mr Ford's submissions were such that they warranted a costs order against him. The court also dismissed the argument that Mr Ford's own financial situation should affect the usual rule regarding costs in legal proceedings.

The court ordered that Mr Ford was to pay the Law Society's costs of the proceedings. This included costs associated with the application for costs, reflecting the court's view that the Law Society was wholly successful in their application and that Mr Ford's arguments in opposition lacked merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.