Spencer v Coshott

In *Spencer v Coshott*, the applicant, Mr. Spencer, sought judicial review of decisions made by a review panel and the District Court concerning costs. Mr. Spencer was represented by an incorporated legal practice of which he was the principal, sole director, and shareholder. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr. Spencer, as the principal of the incorporated legal practice, was entitled to recover costs from the respondent, Coshott, in circumstances where he was personally acting as the solicitor for the incorporated legal practice.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in denying the applicant costs payable to his incorporated legal practice. This question engaged the application of the *Chorley* exception, which generally permits a party acting as their own solicitor to recover costs, and its relevance to incorporated legal practices, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow*. The Court also considered what constitutes "the record" for the purposes of an error of law on the face of the record in judicial review proceedings.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Bell P, Emmett AJA, and Simpson AJA, found that the primary judge had erred in denying the applicant costs. Applying the principles established in *Bell Lawyers*, the Court held that the *Chorley* exception, which allows a party who is a solicitor to recover costs when acting in person, extends to situations where a party is represented by an incorporated legal practice of which they are the sole director and shareholder. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, the individual solicitor is effectively acting in person, and the corporate structure does not alter the fundamental nature of their involvement or disentitle them to costs.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to amend the summons, set aside the orders of the District Court and the review panel, and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal to the District Court and of the application to the Court of Appeal. Directions were also given for the quantification of these costs.