Hudson v Sigalla (No 2) [2017] FCA 339

Hudson v Sigalla (No 2) [2017] FCA 339

Costs should be awarded in a specified sum, not on an indemnity basis, reflecting fair and reasonable charges with substantial discount for excessive, unnecessary, or unjustified work, and no recovery for self-represented party’s own representation where Chorley exception does not clearly apply to barristers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Vary Costs Order Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs refused. Costs awarded in specified lump sum with discounts applied.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'chorley Exception' 'self Represented Litigant Costs' 'time Costing in Legal Fees']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'chorley Exception' 'self Represented Litigant Costs' 'time Costing in Legal Fees']

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

Appeal / Application to Vary Costs Order Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should costs be awarded in a specified sum or on an indemnity basis?' 'Is the amount sought fair and reasonable or excessive?' 'Does the Chorley exception apply to barristers?' 'Can a litigant recover costs for their own representation when also acting as counsel for another party?']

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should be awarded in a specified sum, not on an indemnity basis, reflecting fair and reasonable charges with substantial discount for excessive, unnecessary, or unjustified work, and no recovery for self-represented party’s own representation where Chorley exception does not clearly apply to barristers.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs refused. Costs awarded in specified lump sum with discounts applied.

Orders

  • ['Order 3 made on 28 November 2016 varied to specify costs in the sum of $28,300 allocated between counsel and solicitor fees.' 'Each party to bear own costs of this application.']