Login
Barrister drops action against solicitor following ‘sad history of litigation’
In the latest chapter in a “sad history of litigation between the parties”, the NSW Supreme Court dismissed appeal proceedings brought by a barrister against a solicitor who retained him.
Naomi Neilson
Barrister Christopher Bevan was ordered to pay solicitor John Bingham costs on a part ordinary and indemnity basis after an attempt to appeal costs certificates in the total sum of $121,975.26.
At the outset of the hearing, Bevan’s counsel advised Associate Justice Joanne Harrison he would either discontinue the appeal, or in the alternative, have the appeal dismissed. Justice Harrison opted for the latter, “because it means that this appeal could not be relitigated”.
The dispute between the two legal practitioners stretched back to May 2023, when Bevan was ordered to reimburse Bingham the sum of $136,525 after the barrister charged their client a figure that was almost five times higher than the original costs estimate.
Costs reviews and certificates then followed.
The latest proceedings were filed days after Bingham made an offer of compromise to Bevan, which would have brought the figure owed under the $100,000 threshold for the right to appeal.
Justice Harrison found this offer was “genuine” and it was unreasonable for Bevan to have knocked it back.
When Bingham invited Bevan to consent to orders dismissing the appeal on the basis of the parties paying their own costs, Bevan rejected it and instead filed an amended notice of appeal that included an excess of 700 supporting documents.
“Bevan has not acted reasonably in commencing or continuing his appeal in the face of an invitation from Bingham to consent to the appeal being dismissed with no order as to costs, or taking up the Calderbank offer,” Justice Harrison determined.
Justice Harrison said Bevan’s actions meant Bingham had incurred costs in “considering and responding to the plethora of material he sought to put before the court”. A similar approach was taken by Bevan in the proceedings the costs order originated from.
Further, Justice Harrison said by filing the proceedings in the Supreme Court rather than the District Court, Bevan was “bound to fail”. Even if transferred, it also would have “similarly failed there”.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
