Login
Retired lawyer alleges opposing solicitor had tea with magistrate
A retired lawyer is on the hook for costs after she failed to allege an opposing party’s solicitor had “morning tea” with the magistrate.
Naomi Neilson
Acting Justice Monika Schmidt of the NSW Supreme Court ordered retired solicitor Lynette Styles to pay the costs of one part of the proceedings she has brought against solicitor Geoffrey Knox, who successfully represented her neighbours in a fencing dispute.
In an email she sent to Knox, Styles also alleged he “made uncorroborated statements” about the fence and said she “would pursue this failure” with the Legal Services Commissioner.
Back in June, Styles brought a recusal application against Magistrate Doug Dick to prevent him from hearing proceedings against Knox on the grounds of an allegedly biased determination in the fencing matter.
In a notice of motion, read into the record by the magistrate, Styles alleged she saw Knox “admit himself into the inner sanctum of the court” during the mid-morning adjournment and “perceived that he was joining Magistrate Dick for morning tea”.
“Court staff would have acknowledged that Knox had access to the door code, a privilege that suggested the solicitor had the magistrate’s ear in relation to the fencing matter,” Styles further alleged.
Dick clarified there were no access codes or keypads on the doors, and only “individuals with authority” were given a swipe card. The magistrate said Knox was not one of those individuals.
“In relation to this application, I do not have to prove the truth or otherwise of my decisions or your suspicions. But what I have to do is have regard to a fair-minded person,” Dick said in reply.
“But when it is grounded on factual errors such as yours, I have never met with Knox, he never had access to the door, and I never had morning tea with him or met him for any other reason.”
On appeal, Styles submitted she had a “fear” of reprisal for raising the recusal before the magistrate. She added his alleged bias in the fencing matter “would be carried over” to her case against Knox.
Justice Schmidt rejected Styles’ application for leave to appeal.
Styles requested each party bear their own costs because of a “pending investigation of her complaint” about Knox’s alleged conduct by the Legal Services Commissioner.
But Justice Schmidt knocked this back, having found the costs order is concerned with Styles’ recusal application and not her proceedings against Knox.
“That she is now pursuing her complaints about Mr Knox with the Legal Services Commissioner cannot provide a basis for the departure from the usual costs order which she pursues in these proceedings,” Justice Schmidt said.
The case is Styles v Knox (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1406 (6 November 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
