Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A client who levelled serious and unfounded accusations against his former lawyers was hit with a costs order, but a court also found a request for this to be made on an indemnity or Calderbank basis could not be justified given he was a self-represented litigant.
A former client of Chandlers International Lawyers was ordered to pay costs of an unsuccessful appeal on an ordinary basis, despite submissions by the firm that it was justified to receive costs on an indemnity basis because of his behaviour throughout the matter.
The firm brought the initial proceedings to recoup unpaid legal fees, but the client maintained during the substantive proceedings and on appeal that he was charged “inconsistent with oral agreements”.
He also alleged the lawyer was aware of his “limited cash flow”.
In submissions for costs before the NSW Court of Appeal, Chandlers International Lawyers said the client raised irrelevant matters, failed to comply with court orders and rules in preparing for the appeal, and ignored a warning about his “very poor prospects” of success.
The firm sought costs on an indemnity basis from October 2024, being the date the client filed his amended notice of appeal.
However, Justices Julie Ward, Anna Mitchelmore, and Jeremy Kirk said this conduct could be chalked up to the client’s “lack of qualifications as a lawyer” and “unfamiliarity with the legal process”.
The bench was troubled by the “serious accusations” made by the client against his former lawyers but noted it was not a case where the allegations were made in a pleading. Instead, the court noted references were made only in written and oral submissions on appeal.
“While we do condone the indiscriminate making of serious allegations of dishonesty, some allowance must be made for the fact [the client] is not legally qualified and clearly feels strongly that he has been poorly treated in the course of the litigation,” the bench said.
“There can be no doubt that the costs escalated dramatically over the period of litigation in which [the client] was legally represented.”
In the alternative, Chandlers International Lawyers sought costs on an ordinary basis until late February 2025 and then on an indemnity basis due to a Calderbank offer, or settlement offer.
While there was an element of compromise, Justices Ward, Mitchelmore, and Kirk found it required “complete capitulation” and effectively required him to “accept that the prospects of a successful appeal were nil or so negligible as to discontinue his appeal”.
“True it is that [the client] lost on each of the ‘grounds’ of appeal raised (as the respondent had foreshadowed would be the case). However, this offer required an abandonment of the appeal with a not insignificant payment of costs for the privilege of doing so,” they said.
The case is Warne v ACN 603 541 411 Pty Ltd trading as Chandlers International Lawyers (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 92.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Login
