A new principal has been ordered to pay the costs of a “wasted” Federal Court hearing caused by his many failures during the six-month lead-up.
The Sydney-based practitioner – who had less than four years’ experience when he set up his firm in 2023 – was ordered to personally pay the costs of the case management hearing held in Western Australia on 20 November last year.
Last week, he was refused leave to appeal the costs decision, when it was ruled that the wasted effort “came at a cost which may fairly be placed at (the practitioner’s) feet”.
The sole practitioner – whose firm advertises to practise across a range of legal areas in every state – was representing a sexual abuse survivor in a compensation dispute with the Operator of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
In the costs decision made in December last year, Justice Sam Vandongen, of the court’s Western Australian Registry, said the order was not made to punish the practitioner personally, but to ensure the respondent was compensated for the legal costs wasted by the need for its legal representatives to prepare for, and then appear at, a case management hearing, and to ensure that the applicant was not liable himself to pay those costs.
In his reasons published on 24 February this year, Justice Vandongen said the matter had “an unfortunate history” since it was allocated to his docket in April 2025.
He chronicled the practitioner’s conduct leading up to and after the 20 November hearing, which included failing to file submissions or failing to file on time, repeatedly requesting adjournments, and failing to secure or brief counsel.
A major focus of case management hearings during the period had been on the applicant’s statement of claim and the related question of whether the court had jurisdiction with respect to the matter, he said.
He said it “quickly became apparent” that the practitioner had “not given any real thought” as to the jurisdiction question.
On 13 October, after several case management hearings, the practitioner was asked to provide the court with an update, and his responses showed he had not progressed the matter.
“(Practitioner), this is the point of the things that were said to you on the last occasion, was for you to get your house in order by engaging counsel to look at the pleadings to see whether or not they could be fixed, so that the issue of jurisdiction would be put behind us, but instead what seems to have happened and what you seem to be wanting to do is to kick the can down the road, and that’s not the way things happen in this court,” Justice Vandongen told him.
The respondent’s counsel submitted that “if a solicitor is not experienced in drafting pleadings, they really do have a duty to the client to have them drafted by counsel”.
She added that “if I could speak frankly, we don’t consider it would be productive (to confer about the applicant’s statement of claim) until (the practitioner) retains counsel”.
His Honour emphasised to the practitioner that it would be “the best interest of your client, for you to engage experienced counsel to look at the pleadings”.
The 20 November hearing followed two adjournments that month at the practitioner’s request.
When questioned by Justice Vandongen about why his counsel failed to appear, the practitioner stated: “it was an oversight on my part”.
His Honour said just before the court was adjourned, he was told there was an unidentified person in the lobby of the court’s Microsoft Teams service, used to enable remote appearances.
“It soon became apparent that this person was the applicant’s counsel,” he said.
“When counsel was allowed to join the Microsoft Teams link and communicate with the court, it was clear that he was shaken and embarrassed.
“Counsel informed the court that that he ‘was not advised of the hearing’, and he pointed out that he had never missed an appointment in many decades of legal practice.”
The respondent’s counsel stated she would contact the applicant’s counsel after the hearing. Once counsel for the parties conferred, orders were eventually made for the applicant to file an amended statement of claim by 20 February 2026.
Opposing counsel submitted she had instructions to seek costs be paid directly by the practitioner.
“It would, in my submission, be very unfortunate if (the practitioner’s) client were required to pay for what is clearly (the practitioner’s) misunderstanding of the remarkable waste of taxpayers’ money that has been involved in the scheme litigating this matter,” she said.
“This is a scheme set up to provide redress for victims of child sexual abuse, and I’m embarrassed at the amount of fees I have incurred the scheme in getting this matter to today.”
She said as a matter of professional courtesy at least, the practitioner should have contacted her before now.
“My instructions are quite firmly to seek costs directly against (the practitioner) who has been given the most remarkable indulgences in this proceeding, including by my client,” she said.
“Your Honour will recall that this is the first – if I might speak plainly – tantrum that I’ve had in this entire proceeding when it has been conducted in the most remarkably chaotic, relaxed and lackadaisical manner by (the practitioner) and he will not learn the seriousness of these proceedings and the amount of money being expended by respondents in these proceedings, unless he has to pay for that himself personally.
“And, in my submission, that is well within the exercise of the court’s discretion to have officers of the court that owe duties to the court understand the gravity of their duties and this is really the only way, I think, (the practitioner) will learn the gravity of his duties…”
Justice Vandongen ordered that the practitioner make submissions as to why he should not be personally liable for the costs of the matter.
Those submissions were not made by the deadline of 4pm on 24 November, nor did the practitioner explain his failure to comply.
He acknowledged there had been an “oversight” on his part and that this had caused inconvenience, but suggested there had been a “utilisation” of the 20 November hearing and the end result was “still useful for the … progression of the proceedings”.
He said that “maybe that’s my lack of experience being shown”, that he hoped for “a bit of leniency”, and that as a sole practitioner, he would work on better time management.
Justice Vandongen said it was difficult to understand the practitioner’s submissions.
He said that from the first case management hearing, the court identified that there was an important issue that needed to be resolved concerning jurisdiction, and that there were related issues with the statement of claim.
“However, (the practitioner) has either been unwilling or unable to appreciate that it was his responsibility, as the applicant’s lawyer, to address those issues so as to ensure that these proceedings are conducted in a way that is consistent with the overarching purpose in s 37M of the FCA Act,” he said.
Justice Vandongen said what was expected of the practitioner was made clear at each subsequent case management hearing but “the court was not provided with the assistance it required to manage the issues that had been raised with (the practitioner) for over six months”.
“The 20 November CMH was an abject waste of time,” he said.
“In my view, (the practitioner’s) conduct can properly be described as ‘unreasonable’.
“The respondent unnecessarily incurred legal costs associated with its preparation for, and attendance at, a hearing that was rendered pointless. The respondent should not be required to bear those costs. It would also be positively unjust for the applicant himself to be liable to pay those costs”
Read the decision here.
Share this article