Leneham v Legal Services Commissioner

[2018] QCA 133

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether unsuccessful party's conduct warranted indemnity costs order
5. › Whether charge that was misconceived and had no prospect of success justified indemnity costs
6. › Whether difference of opinion within appellate court negated finding of unreasonable conduct
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Disciplinary proceedings
4. › Costs jurisdiction of appellate court distinguished from disciplinary tribunal
5. › Whether Court of Appeal constrained by s 462 of Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)
6. › Public interest in disciplinary proceedings as relevant consideration
7. › Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 462
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Disciplinary proceedings
4. › Whether appellate court should determine costs of tribunal proceedings or leave to tribunal
5. › Tribunal not functus officio
6. › Specific legislative regime for costs before tribunal
7. › Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 462
1. Appeal
2. › Further evidence on appeal
3. › Application to adduce further evidence on costs question
4. › Whether evidence relevant to issue before the court

Quick Take

The Court of Appeal, not being a 'disciplinary body' under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), exercises its usual costs jurisdiction on appeal from QCAT and is not constrained by the 'special circumstances' threshold in s 462. However, where the Tribunal has reserved costs and is not functus officio on charges other than the one appealed, the appropriate course is to leave costs of the Tribunal proceedings to the Tribunal. A difference of judicial opinion on the substantive appeal may negate a finding that the unsuccessful party's case was unreasonable for indemnity costs purposes.