Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd v Bhatt
[2025] QMC 21
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd v Bhatt[2025] QMC 21
- Add to List
Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd v Bhatt[2025] QMC 21
Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd v Bhatt[2025] QMC 21
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd v. Bhatt [2025] QMC 21 |
PARTIES: | Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) v Ashish Bhatt (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | M44/23 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Registrars Referral |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 28/08/25 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane Magistrates Court |
HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
MAGISTRATE: | Pinder |
ORDER: | In respect to the Registrar’s referral, I determine that the Professional costs claimed by the Plaintiff be disallowed. |
CATCHWORDS: | Civil Procedure – Registrar’s referral – Professional Costs for Self-Acting Law Firm – r 982(1) UCPR. |
CASES: | Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872. Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Janet Pentelow & Anor (2019) HCA 29. |
SOLICITORS: | Self-Acting. |
Introduction
- [1]The plaintiff brings suit seeking to recover fees from the defendant totalling $25,302.89.
- [2]The plaintiff has requested default judgment from the Registrar in that sum.[1]
- [3]
Registrar’s Referral
- [4]The Registrar has referred to the Court, pursuant to r. 982(1) of the UCPR ,the question of what costs are recoverable by the plaintiff.
- [5]The plaintiff is a self-acting law firm and claims in addition to filing fees and process server fees its’ professional costs.
- [6]The plaintiff was invited to make submissions about the issue that was referred to the court and those submissions were contained in a brief email.
- [7]It is convenient to set out the entirety of the plaintiff’s submissions in this regard which was in these terms “our office has sought reimbursement of our professional time by way of compensation for the further resources inputted in recovering the debt, time and resources which could have been applied in other areas of the firm. The purpose of seeking costs was not to punish the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for use of professional resources for recovering a debt that ought to have been paid”.
- [8]As a general rule a self-represented litigant may not obtain any recompense for the value of his or her time spent in litigation.[4]
- [9]In England v Wales an exception to the general rule was that a self-represented litigant who happens to be a solicitor may recover his or her professional costs for acting in the litigation.[5] This is the so-called Chorley exception.
- [10]The High Court in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Janet Pentelow & Anor[6] found conclusively against that proposition notwithstanding that it had been previously applied by some Australian Courts.
- [11]The High Court said:
“dealing with the matter more broadly, however, the Chorley exception is not only anomalous, it is an affront to the fundamental value of equality of all persons before the law. It cannot be justified by the considerations of policy said to support it. Accordingly it should not be recognised as part of the common law of Australia”.[7]
- [12]The Court went on to consider the issue of in-house lawyers and said:
“a decision by this court that the Chorley exception is not part of the common law of Australia would not disturb the well established understanding in relation to in-house lawyers employed by governments and others, that where a solicitor appears in proceedings to represent his or her employer, the employer is entitled to recover costs in circumstances where an ordinary party would be so entitled by way of indemnity”.[8]
The plaintiff here would appear to be an incorporated legal practice having sued as - Stockley Pagano Lawyers Pty Ltd.
- [13]In Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd the High Court considered the proposition, of an Incorporated Law firm , but was not required and did not reach a concluded view.
- [14]The Court said:
“whether the same view should be taken in relation to a solicitor employed by an incorporated legal practice of which he or she is a sole director or shareholders stands to a different position.”
And subsequently:
“it is sufficient for present purposes to say whether or not an incorporated legal practice that is a vehicle for a sole practitioner should be able to obtain an order for costs for work performed by sole director or shareholder is ultimately a matter for the legislature”.[9]
- [15]The plaintiff has been invited to provide submissions on the issue, which would have been anticipated to address the law and facts but has failed to do so. Having regard to the facts, as understood including the Plaintiffs structure ,and following the principles found in Bell Lawyers Case , the plaintiff as a self-represented litigant law firm ought not recover its professional costs.
- [16]I determine, in respect of the Registrar’s referral, that the professional costs sought by the plaintiff be disallowed.
Magistrate J N L Pinder
28/08/25
Footnotes
[1] Rule 283 UCPR.
[2] Rule 283(3) UCPR.
[3] Rule 283(2)(b) UCPR.
[4] Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 410.
[5] London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872.
[6] (2019) HCA 29.
[7] (2019) HCA 29 at paragraph 3.
[8] (2019) HCA 29 at paragraph 50.
[9] (2019) HCA 29 at paragraph 51 and 53.