Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ

BELL LAWYERS PTY LTD APPELLANT

AND

JANET PENTELOW & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29 4 September 2019 S352/2018

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside orders 1 to 4 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 13 July 2018 and, in their place, order that:

(a) the summons for judicial review be dismissed; and

(b) the first respondent (Ms Pentelow) pay the costs of the appellant (Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd) in the District Court of New South Wales and the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

3. The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

B W Walker SC with M Castle for the appellant (instructed by Bell Lawyers)

G O'L Reynolds SC with D P Hume for the first respondent (instructed by Castagnet Lawyers)

Submitting appearance for the second respondent

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow

Practice and procedure – Costs – Legal practitioners – Barristers – Where self‑represented litigant may not obtain any recompense for value of his or her time spent in litigation – Where exception commonly referred to as "Chorley exception" exists for a self-represented litigant who is a solicitor – Where first respondent is a barrister – Where first respondent undertook legal work in litigation in which she was represented – Where first respondent incurred costs on her own behalf and for legal services provided by herself – Whether Chorley exception operates to benefit barristers – Whether Chorley exception recognised as part of common law of Australia.