Benjamin Teng authored this case note published in the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice concerning the decision of the High Court of Australia in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow to renounce the ‘Chorley exception’, which allowed successful self-represented litigants who were also solicitors to claim costs. This note outlines the facts of the case and the issues before the Court, and then analyses how the Court addressed: first, whether the ‘Chorley’ exception should be extended to barristers; second, whether the exception should be recognised as part of the common law of Australia; and third, if not, whether the exception’s renouncement was a matter for the Court, as opposed to Parliament.
The article can be read by clicking here
