Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd (ACN 114 524 724) trading as Bell Lawyers
Case
•
[2016] NSWDC 186
•25 August 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd (ACN 114 524 724) trading as Bell Lawyers [2016] NSWDC 186
[2016] NSWDC 186
25 August 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd, the dispute involved the entitlement to costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) and related Acts. The appellant, Pentelow, sought a costs order against Bell Lawyers, arguing that she was entitled to profit costs for work she had performed in addition to that done by her retained solicitor and senior counsel. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the so-called Chorley exception, which prevents solicitors from claiming costs for work they perform for themselves, should be extended to apply to barristers. The court needed to determine whether the appellant, as a barrister litigant, was entitled to profit costs for work she had done in addition to the work carried out by her retained solicitor and senior counsel. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the costs order in favour of the appellant was made pursuant to section 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) or section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The court held that the Chorley exception should not be extended to apply to barristers. It was determined that the appellant, as a barrister litigant, was not entitled to profit costs for work she performed in addition to that carried out by her retained solicitor and senior counsel. The court also concluded that the costs order in question was made pursuant to section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), not section 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). As a result, the summons was dismissed, and the matter of costs was reserved with liberty to apply.
In summary, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, dismissed the summons and reserved the matter of costs with liberty to apply, ruling that the Chorley exception does not extend to barristers and that the costs order was made under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) rather than the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).
The central legal issue before the court was whether the so-called Chorley exception, which prevents solicitors from claiming costs for work they perform for themselves, should be extended to apply to barristers. The court needed to determine whether the appellant, as a barrister litigant, was entitled to profit costs for work she had done in addition to the work carried out by her retained solicitor and senior counsel. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the costs order in favour of the appellant was made pursuant to section 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) or section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The court held that the Chorley exception should not be extended to apply to barristers. It was determined that the appellant, as a barrister litigant, was not entitled to profit costs for work she performed in addition to that carried out by her retained solicitor and senior counsel. The court also concluded that the costs order in question was made pursuant to section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), not section 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). As a result, the summons was dismissed, and the matter of costs was reserved with liberty to apply.
In summary, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, dismissed the summons and reserved the matter of costs with liberty to apply, ruling that the Chorley exception does not extend to barristers and that the costs order was made under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) rather than the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd (ACN 114 524 724) trading as Bell Lawyers [2016] NSWDC 186
Most Recent Citation
Bibby v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2025] NSWDC 407
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow
[2019] HCA 29
Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd
[2018] NSWCA 150
Bibby v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2)
[2025] NSWDC 407
Cases Cited
50
Statutory Material Cited
5
Milillo v Konnecke
[2009] NSWCA 109
Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Bell Lawyers
[2013] NSWSC 111
Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Bell Lawyers (No 2)
[2013] NSWSC 288