Roberts v Molan

Roberts (the applicant) sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the applicant's entitlement to a statutory indemnity under section 153 of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) for legal costs incurred in defending defamation proceedings brought against him by Molan (the respondent). The Court of Appeal had overturned an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found that the applicant was entitled to the indemnity.

The primary legal issue before Gummow J was whether the applicant's conduct in relation to the defamation proceedings was such as to disentitle him to the statutory indemnity. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant had acted in a manner that was vexatious or constituted an abuse of process, thereby falling outside the scope of the indemnity provided by section 153 of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW).

Gummow J, sitting in chambers, granted leave to appeal. His Honour's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 153 of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) and the circumstances under which a party might be disentitled to a statutory indemnity. The grant of leave indicated that there were arguable grounds for appeal concerning the application of the statutory provision and the findings of the Court of Appeal regarding the applicant's conduct.