Burrows v Macpherson & Kelley Lawyers (Sydney) Pty Ltd

[2021] NSWCA 148

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Costs
2. › Chorley exception
3. › Incorporated legal practice
4. › Parent company acting for subsidiary in litigation
5. › Whether corporate veil should be pierced to treat parent and subsidiary as same entity
6. › Whether costs recoverable for work done by employed solicitors of parent company
7. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3(1), 98
1. Costs
2. › Indemnity principle
3. › In-house solicitors
4. › Recovery of professional costs by employer for work of employed solicitors
5. › Whether principle extends to incorporated legal practice acting for subsidiary
6. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 3(1)
1. Corporations
2. › Separate legal personality
3. › Piercing the corporate veil
4. › Parent and wholly-owned subsidiary
5. › Whether mere control sufficient to disregard corporate identity
6. › Whether corporate restructure unconnected to litigation justifies piercing veil
1. Costs
2. › Gross sum costs order
3. › Whether District Court erred in making gross sum costs order
4. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98

Quick Take

Where an incorporated legal practice is represented in litigation by a related but separate incorporated legal practice, the costs of the representing practice's employed solicitors remain recoverable under the indemnity principle, and the abolition of the Chorley exception in Bell Lawyers does not affect this position provided the corporate veil is not pierced.