Territory v Dirkis

In the matter of The Public Trustee and Guardian of the Australian Capital Territory versus Paul Vytis Dirkis, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was called upon to consider an application for an order that the defendant file a bill of costs. The plaintiff, The Public Trustee and Guardian of the Australian Capital Territory, sought this order under r 1803 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) in relation to two proceedings. The plaintiff sought to recover costs from the defendant, Paul Vytis Dirkis, arising from the aforementioned proceedings. The defendant had been ordered to pay indemnity costs, which were to be paid from the estate of the late Kathleen Mary Dirkis.

The court was required to decide two main legal issues. The first issue was whether the plaintiff was classified as a third party payer under the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT). If the plaintiff was a third party payer, then they would be bound by the time limit imposed by s 294A(5) of the Act. The second issue was whether the plaintiff was acting with a conflict of interest in making the application for the order.

Justice Elkaim concluded that the plaintiff was not a third party payer as defined in s 261A(1) of the Act. The court reasoned that a third party payer is a person under an obligation to pay another person's legal costs, not by reason of being the losing party in litigation, but by reason of some association between the client and the person. The court found that the plaintiff did not fit within this definition, as they were not under an obligation to pay the defendant's legal costs, but rather, were seeking to recover costs ordered by the court. The court further held that the plaintiff was not bound by the time limit imposed by s 294A(5) of the Act. Additionally, Justice Elkaim rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was acting with a conflict of interest, finding that the plaintiff was endeavouring to pay the defendant's costs in the manner ordered by the court and had not been able to do so because the parties had not reached an agreement as to the quantum of those costs.

The court made the following orders: (i) The defendant is to file a bill of costs in respect of his costs in proceedings SC 58 of 2017 and P 513 of 2011 within 30 days of the date of this order, and (ii) Each party to pay their own costs for the application.