Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v PentelowCitation:[2019] HCA 29Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:04 Sep 2019Case Number:S352/2018Read more

Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v PentelowCitation:[2019] HCA 29Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:04 Sep 2019Case Number:S352/2018Read more

The Chorley exception does not operate to benefit barristers and is not recognised as part of the common law of Australia.

Parties
Self Represented Litigant (barrister): First Respondent; Opposing Party: Applicant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Chorley Exception, Self Represented Litigants, Legal Practitioners, Costs Payable
Practice and Procedure Costs Chorley Exception Self Represented Litigants Legal Practitioners Costs Payable

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Respondent

Self Represented Litigant (barrister)

Applicant

Opposing Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chorley exception applies to barristers who are self-represented
  2. 2 Whether the Chorley exception is recognised as part of the common law of Australia

Ratio Decidendi

The Chorley exception does not operate to benefit barristers and is not recognised as part of the common law of Australia.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Chorley exception does not apply to barristers.
  • Costs incurred by the self-represented barrister are not recoverable under the Chorley exception.