Login
Barrister has fees wiped over connection with client
After coming out on top in a dispute over investment funds, a barrister had a claim for over $37,000 in counsel fees wiped because of his involvement in the proceedings.
Naomi Neilson
Barrister Peter Van Eps, sole director and 95 per cent shareholder in Stockingham, was unable to overturn a costs assessment that saw his $37,840 claim for counsel fees downgraded to “$0.00” in professional costs and $1,089 in disbursements.
Stockingham had recently won a dispute with Brisbane Angels Nominees and three other appellants over a disputed investment, and Queensland’s Court of Appeal ordered the latter to pay costs.
In the most recent proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Stockingham sought a review of the costs assessment.
Part of Brisbane Angels Nominees’ objection to this review was on the basis that rule 95 of the Barrister’s Conduct Rules – that a barrister must be independent – was contrary to Van Eps’ position.
Justice Paul Freeburn agreed the court could not “sweep aside any concerns” about Van Eps’ interest in Stockingham “on the basis his personal interests and Stockingham’s interests are likely to coincide”.
“The Barrister’s Conduct Rules go to some effort to ensure that barristers act independently, and recognise and discharge their obligations in relation to the administration of justice, and provide services of the highest standard unaffected by personal interest.
“And so, barristers are obliged to exercise their forensic judgments and give their advice independently and for the proper administration of justice, despite any contrary desires of their client,” Justice Freeburn said in his written reasons.
Justice Freeburn said the court was being asked to exercise its discretion to permit a barrister to recover professional fees “in circumstances where he has acted contrary to the rule”.
“The court has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the barristers that appear in court are independent,” Justice Freeburn said.
Stockingham submitted Van Eps had not been found guilty of any professional misconduct, and while that is true, Justice Freeburn said it was “also true that the court will not often, or at least not always, act as the effective guardians of the Barrister’s Conduct Rules”.
It also argued that the only evidence before the court was Van Eps held a 95 per cent shareholding and was its sole director, so it suggested a full inquiry must be held before adverse conclusions could be drawn.
Stockingham submitted that the facts may reveal the 5 per cent shareholder may have control of the company, and Brisbane Angels Nominees bore an onus to establish Van Eps had effective control or a material financial or property interest in the outcome of the case.
Justice Freeburn rejected those submissions.
“The facts of Van Eps’ interest in Stockingham are plain enough.
“The issue was fairly raised in Brisbane Angels’ objections in April 2024 and again in its submissions in January 2025.
“Stockingham was entitled to offer an explanation of Van Eps’ interest and role in Stockingham. Stockingham chose not to do so,” he said.
The case is Stockingham Pty Ltd v Brisbane Angels Nominees Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 23 (14 February 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
