Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner (No. 2)  [2013] QSC 253

PARTIES:

JOHN PAUL MURPHY
(applicant)
v
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

7724 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2013

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

1.    The applicant’s further application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – where the applicant seeks costs – where the applicant is a self-represented barrister – where the applicant submits that an anomalous exception relating to self-represented solicitors – may be extended to allow self-represented barristers to claim their professional costs in litigation – where the applicant seeks an order that the costs be paid on an indemnity basis – whether the application should be allowed.

Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (UK)

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403, cited.
Farkas v Northcity Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1036, considered.
Guss v Vanhuizen (No. 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47, considered.
Hartford Holdings Pty Ltd v CP (Adelaide) Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] SASC 161, cited.
Khera v Jones [2006] NSWCA 85, considered.
London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley, Crawford and Chester (1884) 13 QBD 872, cited.
Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] QSC 70, cited.
Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26, considered.

COUNSEL:

J P Murphy appeared in person
M S Trim for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

J P Murphy appeared in person
Crown Law for the respondent

Background

1. This is a costs judgment arising from my judgment in Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] QSC 70.[1]  The applicant, who represented himself in the proceeding, is a barrister.  He held, and is the current holder of, a practising certificate.[2]

   [1]Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] QSC 70.

   [2]Affidavit Murphy paragraphs 2 & 3; Ex JPM-1.

1. In the principal judgment, I made the following order for costs:

“[3]The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application.”

1. On 26 March 2013, the applicant delivered a letter to the Crown Solicitor attaching a fee note for his professional costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.[3]  The Crown Solicitor disputed liability to pay the applicant’s “professional costs”.  The applicant now seeks a declaration that the word “costs … includes the applicant’s professional costs”, an order that the costs be paid on the indemnity basis, and costs of the present application.

[3]Affidavit Murphy paragraphs 8 & 9; Ex JPM-3.

General principles

1. It is well established that litigants in person are not entitled to be compensated for the value of their time.  The basis for this rule was articulated by the House of Lords in London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley, Crawford and Chester (“Chorley’s case”):[4]

“… only legal costs which the Court can measure are to be allowed, and that such legal costs are to be treated as expenses necessarily arising…