Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A barrister who sued Nine for falsely suggesting she was a dog thief failed to overturn an order for the damages to be paid into court until a fee dispute with her former solicitors has been decided.
Counsel Gina Edwards has been embroiled in a legal fight with her former solicitors at Giles George over the bill for her successful defamation action against Nine Network, which published reports that falsely suggested she stole her famous cavoodle, Oscar.
As part of Giles George’s application for an equitable lien over a lump-sum costs amount paid to Edwards, the firm sought an urgent interlocutory order that Nine pay the monies into the court, rather than directly to Edwards, pending the resolution of its claim.
Justice Michael Wigney made the order in mid-February.
Edwards has since tried to overturn the order, as well as an earlier decision to allow Giles George to intervene. For the latter, Edwards sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
In a decision handed down on Friday (18 July), Justice Melissa Perry said there was a “reasonable explanation” for the delay and Nine would not suffer prejudice if the extension of time were granted.
“However, in circumstances where the proposed grounds of appeal lack any real chance of success, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time, and the application should therefore be refused with costs,” Justice Perry said.
One of the grounds relied on by Edwards was a claim that Justice Wigney erred in permitting Giles George to contravene section 178(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, pending the resolution of the costs dispute by the NSW Law Society.
That section holds that if a legal practice is found to have contravened disclosure obligations, the costs agreement is void and the client is not required to pay costs until they have been assessed.
It also restricts the law practice from commencing or maintaining proceedings for the recovery of “any and all legal costs” until they have been assessed or determined by a regulatory authority.
Justice Perry said this section does not apply to “a commercial … client”, which includes a law practice and, in turn, a sole practitioner.
“I agree with Giles George that this includes lawyers (or, more precisely, barristers) who are clients in their private capacity.
“As such, section 178 of the Uniform Law does not apply to Edwards, who is a barrister, even though she engaged Giles George in a private capacity. It follows that ground one lacks any reasonable prospects of success,” Justice Perry said.
Another of Edwards’ grounds alleged Justice Wigney denied her procedural fairness by listing the proceedings on 18 February 2025, but Justice Perry said it was also without merit.
Giles George contended the payment from Nine was due on 19 February, which meant the matter had to be called on earlier.
Further, the court heard Edwards was “effectively put on notice” of the matter from 7 February when Nine suggested to the parties that the matter be relisted prior to the 19 February deadline.
“Edwards’ characterisation of the hearing of 18 February 2025 as an ‘ambush’ cannot be accepted given Edwards effectively had 11 days within which to consider the matter before participating in the hearing,” the Federal Court heard.
Justice Perry also found there was no relevant prejudice as Edwards would have the opportunity after Justice Wigney makes a final determination “to pursue any avenues which may be available to her”.
The case: Edwards v Giles George Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 822
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
