Event and Time
Event Description
In Aitken Partners Pty Ltd v Guneser, the Victorian Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an incorporated legal practice could recover professional costs when acting for itself, following the precedent set by Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow and United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills. Both previous cases determined that the Chorley exception, which allowed self-represented lawyers to recover costs for their own time, did not apply in Australia.
Application and Claims
Aitken Partners sought to recover professional costs following a taxation initiated by a former client, Mr. Guneser, who disputed the costs billed. After success in the taxation, a Costs Judge allowed only reasonable disbursements and disallowed professional costs for self-representation, citing foundations laid in the Bell Lawyers case.
Judicial Decisions
The Costs Judge concluded that Aitken Partners could not recover professional costs since the underlying rationale of the Bell decision, rejecting the Chorley exception, also applied to incorporated legal practices. The judge's decisions were confirmed despite Aitken's appeal, reinforcing that self-represented incorporated legal practices do not have the same cost recovery rights as in-house lawyers.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Aitken Partners argued that the Costs Judge misinterpreted the Bell Lawyers decision, asserting that incorporated practices should be treated similarly to in-house lawyers who can recover costs.
- Mr. Guneser contended that any ruling from the High Court concerning self-representation excluded incorporated practices from recovering professional costs, aligning with the decisions in Bell Lawyers and United Petroleum.
Claims and Analysis
- Aitken Partners:
- Claim: Professional costs for self-representation should be recoverable. - : The Costs Judge erred by failing to recognize that their professional costs could be justified under existing legal principles, similar to the in-house counsel scenario. - : Affidavits indicating Aitken's structure as a well-established practice operating through its employed solicitors. - : The High Court did not explicitly preclude incorporated practices from recovering their costs and left the interpretation of their rights open.