Fahid Rahman v Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/a Kent Attorneys [2021] NSWSC 1155

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fahid Rahman v Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/a Kent Attorneys [2021] NSWSC 1155 Hearing dates: 14 July 2021 Date of orders: 10 September 2021 Decision date: 10 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: The Court orders: (1) The summons filed 19 May 2020 is dismissed. (2) There be no order as to costs Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial Review – Costs orders – Jurisdictional error — Error on face of the record – Chorley Exception – Recovery of professional costs by self-represented solicitors – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under s 69 Supreme Court Act 2005 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3(1), 98, and 99. Supreme Court Act 2005 (NSW), s 69 Cases Cited: Bell Lawyers v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29 Burrows v Macpherson and Killey Lawyers (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 148 United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills [2020] VSCA 128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff) Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/as Kent Attorneys (First Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Duc (Plaintiff)

Solicitors: Mr Oliziki (First Defendant) (Submitting appearance) File Number(s): 2020/160725 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This decision concerns a dispute between a law firm and a former client as to whether a solicitor can claim compensation for self-representation. 2. The plaintiff is Fahmid Rahman ("Mr Rahman"). The defendant is Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki t/as Kent Attorneys ("Kent Attorneys"). Mr Duc of counsel appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Oliziki, solicitor, filed a submitting appearance and appeared for the defendant at the hearing via video link. He did not wish to make any submissions. Hence there is no active contradictor. 3. The plaintiff relied upon a court book that he prepared.