Case: Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27 ; [2003] 1 AC 120
Outcome: cited
The power to award costs against a non-party may be exercised against a legal practitioner acting for a party in the proceedings. There are authorities which indicate that the power to make such an order is an aspect of a power of the Court to discipline legal practitioners conducting proceedings before it. In a recent judgment in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 153 ; (2005) 63 NSWLR 300, McColl JA cited, in support of that proposition, House of Lords and Privy Council authorities Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282 at 318; Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27 ; [2003] 1 AC 120 at 143 and Harley v McDonald [2001] UKPC 18 ; [2001] 2 AC 678 at 703. Similar observations appear in the Victorian Court of Appeal in Etna v Arif [1999] VSCA 99 ; (1999) 2 VR 353 at 379 and in the Queensland Court of Appeal in Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Fosters Brewing Group Ltd [2004] 2 Qd R 11 at 16, cited with approval in Martinovic v Chief Executive Queensland Transport [2005] 1 Qd R 502 at 512. As her Honour also observed, however, Mason CJ and Deane J in Knight said it was artificial to attribute orders for costs against solicitors in the exercise of a court's inherent jurisdiction to an exercise of the disciplinary power rather than the power to award costs (188). In Lemoto, it may be noted, the Court was considering the application of Pt 11, Div 5C of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) introduced by the Civil Liability Act 2002 as part of a package of measures designed to reduce the costs of claims for damages (327). A practitioner is not to provide legal services on a claim or defence of a claim for damages unless he or she reasonably believes, on the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law, that the claim or defence has reasonable prospects of success (s 198J). Where that duty is breached, a costs order may be made against the solicitor or barrister personally (s 198M). In its statutory setting the power thus conferred on the Court might easily be seen as disciplinary. Even so it represents, as McColl JA observed, '... a departure from the historical basis upon which legal practitioners could be exposed to personal costs orders' (328). The Act imposes '... a standard that is more demanding than that applicable in cases where, by reference to general law principles, a costs order is sought against a party's lawyer' De Georgiou v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 285 at 292 (Barrett J). 13 In Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 18 ; (2004) 133 FCR 582, Mansfield J rejected an application for costs made by the Minister against the solicitor for the applicant. His Honour held that, simply by instituting or maintaining on instructions, proceedings with no real prospect of success a solicitor would not be exposed to an order for costs. He referred to Medcalf v Mardell at 143-144 (Lord Hobhouse) and the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd v Laghaifar [2003] 2 Qd R 683 at [24] (Davies JA). In the latter case Davies JA, with whom Williams JA and Philippides J agreed, said that: 'If the case is plainly unarguable it is improper to argue it.' Nevertheless Mansfield J found, in the concurring judgment of Williams JA, a qualification in his reference to what Lord Hobhouse said in Medcalf v Mardell (at 143-144) : 'So it is not enough that the court considers that the advocate has been arguing a hopeless case. The litigant is entitled to be heard; to penalise the advocate for presenting his client's case to the court would be contrary to the constitutional principles to which I have referred. The position is different if the court concludes that there has been improper time-wasting by the advocate or the advocate has knowingly lent himself to an abuse of process.'