von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 172

von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 172

Ms von Reisner, as a self-represented litigant, was not entitled to recover costs for her own time, lost earnings, or paralegal and clerical work performed by herself or through Litigation Services, because Cachia precluded such recovery and the Chorley exception was not extended to her circumstances. There was no evidentiary basis for a personal costs order against counsel, judicial immunity precluded an order that the primary judge pay costs, and her only entitlement was to out of pocket expenses actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs in Appeal / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Successful Appeal
Outcome
Ms von Reisner's application for costs was rejected except for out of pocket expenses actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred.
Legal Topics
['costs of Self Represented Litigants' 'chorley Exception' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'personal Costs Orders Against Legal Practitioners' 'judicial Immunity']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs of Self Represented Litigants' 'chorley Exception' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'personal Costs Orders Against Legal Practitioners' 'judicial Immunity']

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

Costs in Appeal / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a successful self-represented litigant who owned a business providing litigation services was entitled to a costs order compensating her for time spent or earnings lost in conducting the appeal and proceedings below.' 'Whether the Chorley exception applied to allow recovery for paralegal or clerical work performed by the self-represented litigant or through her registered business.' 'Whether a personal costs order should be made against counsel for the State in the Court below.' 'Whether the primary judge could be ordered to pay costs.' 'Whether the appellant could recover out of pocket expenses actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms von Reisner, as a self-represented litigant, was not entitled to recover costs for her own time, lost earnings, or paralegal and clerical work performed by herself or through Litigation Services, because Cachia precluded such recovery and the Chorley exception was not extended to her circumstances. There was no evidentiary basis for a personal costs order against counsel, judicial immunity precluded an order that the primary judge pay costs, and her only entitlement was to out of pocket expenses actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred.

Court Disposition

Ms von Reisner's application for costs was rejected except for out of pocket expenses actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents are to pay the Appellant's out of pocket expenses (if any), as were actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred in the conduct of this appeal and in the proceeding before the primary judge."]