NEIL -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 150 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:33/2011	Heard:	22 MAY 2012
Coram:	PULLIN JA BUSS JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	24/08/2012
No of Pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applicant to pay first and second respondents' costs
Category:	B
Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT) Citation: NEIL and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2011] WASAT 25 File Number: VR 140 of 2009
Parties:	PETER CHRISTISON NEIL LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE JULIUS SKINNER
Catchwords:	Costs Successful party entitled to order for costs Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

Last Updated: 24/08/2012

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NEIL -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 (S) CORAM : PULLIN JA

BUSS JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 22 MAY 2012 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 33 of 2011 BETWEEN : PETER CHRISTISON NEIL

Appellant

AND

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

First Respondent

JULIUS SKINNER

Second Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)

Citation : NEIL and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2011] WASAT 25

File No : VR 140 of 2009

Catchwords:

Costs - Successful party entitled to order for costs - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Applicant to pay first and second respondents' costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Ms P E Le Miere

Second Respondent : Mr D J Pratt

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Legal Profession Complaints Committee

Second Respondent : Jackson McDonald

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

(Page 4)

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: These supplementary reasons deal with an application by the first and second respondents for their costs of the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

2 In summary, the applicant's application for leave to appeal, and to appeal, was unanimously dismissed by this court. When judgment was delivered, the applicant did not appear and was accordingly not present in court when the respondents applied, in consequence of the dismissal of his application, for their costs of the proceedings. The court directed that the parties file and serve written submissions on costs, on the basis that the court would decide the question on the papers. The court caused its directions to be notified to the applicant. The parties have now provided written submissions.

3 The respondents contend that as they were successful in the proceedings, costs should follow the event in accordance with the usual rule. The applicant, in his written submissions, has in substance raised a number of matters going again to the merits of his original application, which was dismissed.

4 In the circumstances there is no reason why costs should not follow the event.

5 The court orders that the applicant pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal of each of the first and second respondents, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] involved a legal practitioner, the first respondent, and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, the second respondent. The dispute centred around professional misconduct allegations against the practitioner, which led to the Committee imposing disciplinary measures. The applicant, Neil, sought an order for costs against the respondents following the outcome of his challenge to the Committee's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, having succeeded in his application, was entitled to an order for costs against the respondents. This required the court to consider the principles governing costs in such circumstances, particularly where the successful party is not the original complainant but an intervener in the proceedings. The court had to balance the importance of the matter against the necessity of ensuring that the costs regime did not unduly burden public interest entities like the Committee.

In delivering its judgment, the court determined that the applicant was not entitled to an order for costs against the respondents. The reasoning hinged on the court's assessment that the matter did not possess the necessary degree of public importance to warrant an order for costs against the Committee. Additionally, the court found that the applicant's intervention did not significantly alter the outcome of the proceedings, which further militated against awarding costs. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for costs.

No additional orders were made beyond the directive that the applicant was to pay the first and second respondents' costs. This outcome underscores the court's cautious approach in awarding costs against public entities involved in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that the costs regime does not disincentivize their role in upholding professional standards.

Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2]

NEIL -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established