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

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

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review of the Local Court's enforcement orders, as s 69(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2005 (NSW) specifically precludes relief relating to enforcement of judgments. Even if jurisdiction existed, the costs awarded as professional fees to the self-represented solicitors were not subject to recovery according to Bell Lawyers v Pentelow, but the amounts related to court registry fees for enforcement, and discretion would have led to dismissal anyway.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'costs Orders' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error on Face of the Record' 'chorley Exception' 'recovery of Professional Costs by Self Represented Solicitors' 'jurisdiction Under S 69 Supreme Court Act 2005 (nsw)']
['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 Under S 69 Supreme Court Act 2005 (nsw)']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a self-represented solicitor can recover professional costs (Chorley exception) in Australian courts' 'Whether the Local Court had jurisdiction to order costs in favour of a self-represented solicitor' "Whether there was an error on the face of the record or jurisdictional error in the Local Court's costs orders" 'Whether the costs orders are unenforceable in light of the decision in Bell Lawyers v Pentelow']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review of the Local Court's enforcement orders, as s 69(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2005 (NSW) specifically precludes relief relating to enforcement of judgments. Even if jurisdiction existed, the costs awarded as professional fees to the self-represented solicitors were not subject to recovery according to Bell Lawyers v Pentelow, but the amounts related to court registry fees for enforcement, and discretion would have led to dismissal anyway.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons filed 19 May 2020 is dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs']