Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd

The applicant, a barrister, sought judicial review of a District Court order concerning costs. The dispute arose from the applicant's entitlement to costs in underlying proceedings where she had acted as a litigant in person, despite having retained solicitors and senior counsel. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether the *Chorley* exception to the general rule that a successful party should recover their costs applied to a barrister litigant in circumstances where they had engaged other legal representatives but also performed legal work themselves.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant could be considered "self-represented" for the purposes of the *Chorley* exception, which allows for the recovery of costs incurred in engaging legal representation even by a litigant in person, where the litigant has acted reasonably. The court had to consider the extent to which the applicant's own legal work and the engagement of external counsel impacted her status as a litigant in person and the applicability of the *Chorley* exception.

The Court of Appeal allowed the summons for judicial review in part, setting aside the District Court's orders of 25 August 2016. The matter was remitted to the District Court to determine in accordance with law, with the intention that the District Court would remit the matter to the Review Panel to deal with the assessment of costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the summons for judicial review.