Michaela Barlow v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [No 2]

Michaela Barlow sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute reached the Federal Court, where the primary concern was the appropriate allocation of costs following the hearing. The court was tasked with determining the correct approach to awarding costs in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly in light of the invitation extended to the parties to submit their views on the matter. Additionally, the court had to decide whether there was any compelling reason to deviate from the established methodology for assessing costs, and if the orders foreshadowed by the court were appropriate.

The court examined the principles guiding the award of costs in the ACT and concluded that there was no basis to depart from the established approach. The invitation to the parties to file submissions on costs did not indicate any issue of principle that necessitated a different course of action. The court noted that the orders foreshadowed were consistent with the usual practice and did not raise any significant legal concerns.

In summary, the court found that the existing methodology for awarding costs in the ACT was suitable, and there was no need to alter the approach. Consequently, the court upheld the decision to invite the parties to submit their views on costs, and the orders foreshadowed were deemed appropriate. The court directed that each party bear their own costs for the hearing and the delivery of judgment, while otherwise, the appellant was to pay the respondent’s costs.