Shore v Palios Meegan & Nicholson Holdings P/L & Palios (No 3)

In the case of Shore v Palios Meegan & Nicholson Holdings P/L & Palios (No 3), the plaintiff sought to recover costs and specifically, the certification for senior counsel. The parties were in agreement on the costs to be awarded, but disagreed on whether it was appropriate to certify the case for senior counsel. The case had previously been before the court, where complex and specialist worker’s compensation issues had been central to the proceedings. The legal issues before the court were whether the case warranted certification for senior counsel and whether the plaintiff’s solicitor acted prudently in engaging senior counsel without the assistance of junior counsel.

The court considered the factors relevant to certification for senior counsel, including the volume of materials involved, the nature and extent of cross-examination, the anticipated length of the case, the complexity of the issues, and whether the case involved practice in a specialised field. The court found that the case involved complicated and highly specialised issues, required extensive cross-examination, and involved expert evidence in a specialised area. The court also noted that the solicitor had mitigated the potential impact of costs by engaging senior counsel without junior counsel. The court concluded that the case was appropriate for certification for senior counsel.

The court ordered that the case be certified for senior counsel. The court noted that many attributes commonly leading to a favourable order certifying fit for counsel were present in abundance in this case, and that most responsible solicitors acting prudently for a not over-endowed litigant, would invariably have consulted senior counsel from the outset to conduct this litigation. The court also noted that the subsequent events and the nature and difficulty of the issues served to reinforce that conclusion.