Costs snafu tangles chambers

Entire set of Sydney chambers caught by difficulty drafting a summons that complied with the rules ... Joyous Yarraside "QC" breaks out the frills and furbelows ... NSW bar says Queen's Counsel title is all about self-adornment and not in the public's interest 

From The Spectator

SYDNEY'S Ada Evans Chambers came a cropper as it took on the might of lone barrister Frank Santisi. 

In December last year Frank won a stoush with the chambers over a claim that his licence fees were outstanding. 

He cross claimed and was awarded $8,000 plus interest and costs. 

Ada was incandescent and sought to appeal the costs order. 

The appeal came before Christine Adamson in the NSW Supremes and she was deeply unimpressed that the chambers hadn't sought leave to appeal. 

Rodney Freeman for Ada initially said no leave was required, but by the conclusion of the hearing he sought to add a prayer for leave, conceding that it was possible the issues raised mixed questions of fact and law. 

Santisi first raised the leave requirement in correspondence last March. An amended summons in March did not seek leave. It was only just before Adamson reserved her judgment that Freeman conceded that leave might be the thing. 

The judge was in no doubt about it: 

"Because the chambers seeks to appeal a costs order, leave is required." 

Even if had been sought, she added, it would not be granted. 

Santisi had already knocked-up Local Court costs of $47,025 from his law firm and $63,030 in appearing for himself. 

He had also made offers to walk away with each side bearing its own costs for the claim and his cross-claim - but to no avail. 

It seems Santisi's costs had exposed the chambers "to a result that they had not necessarily envisaged". 

The chambers argument that it was wrong for costs to be allowed for barristers appearing for themselves, even though there might be an exception for solicitors, bit the dust - along with all the other grounds it served-up. 

By this stage the costs were grossly disproportionate to the amount in issue and the judge said it was time to call a halt to the song and dance. 

Ada's summons was dismissed. 

What does seem a tad embarrassing is that an entire set of chambers couldn't draft a summons that complied with the rules by including an application for leave to appeal - even when earlier directed to do so. 

See: judgment 

*   *   *

Wyles, excited about transparency

I WAS tickled pink to see VicBar's Michael D. Wyles "QC" bursting into print in his favourite organ, Foley's List newsletter. 

The Wyles One had been at the forefront of lobbying to convert his miserable little SC into a more fitting bauble. 

"In write now as one of Her Majesty Counsel, having been so appointed by the Governor in Council on the advice of the Premier on Wednesday 16 April 2014. 

I understand that there are some who see the reinstatement of the office of Queen's Counsel as of little consequence. 

I am afraid that whilst I can respect their views, I cannot accept them." 

And the reasons advanced by this proud son of outer Aspendale bear repeating. He brings fresh angles to an otherwise flaccid debate.  

According to Mikey the electorate wants a constitutional monarchy, so there is no mandate to "rip down" the title of Queen's Counsel. Doing so undermined the rule of law. 

"It took from the community its ready understanding of the leadership of the profession and in so doing made the courts and their immense power more mysterious to the citizens they serve than ever need be the case." 

Needless to say, Premier Napthalene and Attorney General Robert (ZZzzz) Clark are jolly fine chaps because they "understand how critical the rule of law is to the well being of Victorians ... 

"The decision to offer the title Queen's Counsel evidences their commitment to the rule of law and to our court system and its transparency for the people of Victoria." 

Furthermore, the Wyles One warns against any change to the system in the future. 

Without the support of the electorate it would amount to a "revolution" to do away with the royalist decoration. 

Until this moment, few had realised the rule of law had been undermined without QCs. 

See: Wyles' missive

*   *   *

Boulten: missing paragraphs

POOR NSW Senior Counsel. 

After bar prez Phillip Boulten told everyone on Friday (May 9) that the grill would not be asking the government to reinstate the monarchical embroidery, lots of sulky briefs were seen lurking in Phillip Street - plotting their next move. 

The NSW bar council simply said the reasons advanced in favour of reinstating QCs "relate to specific interests as opposed to the public at large". 

You can read Phil Boulten's paragraph challenged announcement here.  

And here's the report of the Priestly Seven.  

If the analysis of eminent "QC" Mickey Wiles is correct, without a steady flow of fresh QCs the rule of law in NSW is threatened. 

Things couldn't get more dire.