Worchild v Petersen

[2008] QCA 26

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Solicitor litigant in person
4. › Professional costs
5. › Whether solicitor without current practising certificate entitled to professional costs
6. › Whether lack of practising certificate due to own choice distinguishable from official inadvertence
7. › Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld)
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › District Court of Queensland
4. › Discretionary costs order
5. › Whether error in principle identified
6. › Whether substantial injustice demonstrated
7. › District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
1. Appeal
2. › Interference with discretion of court below
3. › Costs orders
4. › Application of House v The King principles
5. › Whether discretionary order should be set aside

Quick Take

A former solicitor who does not hold a current practising certificate due to their own choice not to renew (as opposed to official inadvertence) falls outside the Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) exception and cannot recover professional costs as a self-represented litigant. The Guss exception remains narrow and is confined to cases where the absence from the roll or lack of certificate is attributable to no fault of the solicitor.