As law firms navigate a highly competitive and evolving market, the need for technology that drives efficiency, reduces costs, and delivers exceptional client service has never been more crucial. A recent...
Q&A with Richard Douglas KC, Gerard Mullins KC, and Simon Grant Annotated Civil Liability Legislation - Queensland, 6th edition is the essential companion for practitioners engaged in the conduct of...
Q&A with Dr Greg Byrne and Dr Jacqui Horan Sexual Assault Trials: Challenges and Innovations offers a comprehensive examination of the systemic issues in sexual assault trials across common law jurisdictions...
The Total Economic Impact™ of LexisNexis® Lexis+ AI for Large Law Firms, a commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of LexisNexis, May 2025, projects that large law firms could achieve...
A board of directors plays a critical role in shaping a company’s strategy, maintaining relationships with shareholders, and safeguarding the company’s reputation. Appointing a new director may bring welcome...
In a major decision delivered on 4 September 2019, Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29, the High Court has ended the right of lawyers to claim costs when they are self-represented litigants, saying the special rule was "an anomaly and an affront to the fundamental value of equality of all persons before the law".
Over 10 years ago, Sydney barrister Janet Pentelow was briefed on a family law case by Bell Lawyers but was refused full payment of her fees. She sued for the balance, in the Local Court of NSW, but was not successful.
By grant of special leave, Pentelow appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW to obtain recompense for the value of services and was awarded costs in her favour for both the Local Court and Supreme Court proceedings
Upon further appeal by Bell Lawyers to The High Court, the Judges in Bell v Pentelouw, looked at whether the Chorley exception, which had been adopted from England for solicitors, could be applied by extension to barristers for work performed where they are self-represented litigants.
It was decided unanimously that this exception did not extend to barristers.
The Court took the matter one step further, holding that the Chorley exception should not be recognised as part of the common law in Australia. The Court confirmed that the anomalous nature of the Chorley exception is inconsistent with the statutory definition of "costs" in s 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
This case ends the ‘undesirable’ practice of self-represented legal professionals being able to claim for costs in litigation where self-interest may prove a barrier to objectivity.
From simple search to analysis and insight, the powerful intelligence of Lexis Advance sits at the heart of many of LexisNexis' legal solutions. Access exactly what you need with a single subscription.
For more detail on Legal Costs, view these titles inside Lexis Advance.
Contact your Relationship Manager for more information.