Costs applications made by the ACT Law Society following successful disciplinary action against a struck-off barrister and solicitor were dismissed by a tribunal for being “frivolous and vexatious”.
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) presidential member Juliet Lucy found costs applications filed by the ACT Law Society in proceedings against struck-off lawyer Hugh Ford were “misconceived” because they sought an order the registrar “has no power to make”.
In January, Ford was removed from the roll of legal practitioners after he was found to have engaged in 24 counts of professional misconduct and two counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
In one of the more serious of his offences, Ford told a court another legal practitioner was responsible for his client’s failure to meet a protection visa deadline without “proper evidentiary basis”.
Costs orders were made in the Law Society’s favour in both the substantive proceedings and after Ford’s failed appeal.
After Ford exhausted avenues of appeal in the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Law Society filed fresh applications for interim or other orders in all of the proceedings, seeking that Ford pay its costs of the appeal and disciplinary proceedings in fixed sums.
“I have found that the costs applications are misconceived for reasons which were not initially put forward by the practitioner,” Lucy said.
“They are misconceived because neither the tribunal nor the registrar has power to make further costs orders (as sought in the application).”
During a hearing, a representative for the council told Lucy the applications for interim or other orders have “been the vehicle previously to bringing the cost issue back before the tribunal”.
“What we’ve endeavoured to do there is to make the registrar’s job as easy as possible, and instead of seeking a hundred per cent of the costs which would require them, potentially, to go through each item, we’ve sought a reduction of 30 per cent of the solicitors’ costs,” she said.
“All we have tried to do is to make it as simple as possible, consistent with section seven of the act, but we’re open to a different way.”
While it may be accepted that the Law Society has used this route in the past, Lucy said the making of an application for costs orders, and for fixed sums, assumes the registrar has the power to award costs, and the power is enlivened upon the receipt of an application for costs.
ACAT also accepted that the Law Society had tried to make the registrar’s job “as easy as possible”, but said this did not overcome the legal difficulty of asking for an order that a registrar had no power to make.
Lucy dismissed the applications on the basis that they were “frivolous and vexatious”, which in the context of the current proceedings meant the application “lacks a legal foundation or is without substance”.
Ford made an application for the proceedings to be dismissed, but this was also found to be misconceived to the extent it sought to preclude the council from having its costs assessed.
“Although the practitioner has had some success in terms of the legal outcome sought, I have dismissed the practitioner’s application to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the proceedings and to the extent that it seeks a decision that the council should not be permitted to recover its costs the subject of the tribunal’s costs orders,” Lucy said.
ACAT anticipated the registrar would proceed to assess the costs subject to earlier costs orders made in the substantive and appeal hearings.
The decision: Ford v Council of the Law Society (Appeal); Council of the Law Society v Ford (Occupational Discipline) [2025] ACAT 73.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
