In brief - Lawyers may be directed by courts to pay the other party's costs
In the recent Victorian Court of Appeal judgment of Yara Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Oswal  VSCA 337, the court found that the legal practitioners acting for the applicants in an unsuccessful appeal had breached their overarching obligations to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the costs incurred were reasonable and proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues and sums in dispute.
Overarching obligations of legal practitioners under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)
The ANZ, receivers appointed by the ANZ and two other applicants had sought security for costs in proceedings in the amounts of $86,361, $31,808.20 and $22,810.80 respectively. Associate Justice Efthim awarded security, but those orders were set aside by Whelan J.
An application to the Court of Appeal for special leave to appeal from the orders of Whelan J was refused and the question of costs was dealt with in the joint judgment delivered by Redlich JA, Priest JA and Macaulay AJA on 27 November 2013.
The court observed that the enforcement of the overarching obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ("the Act") had not previously been considered in any detail at appellate level. The court took the opportunity in its judgment to discuss the overarching obligations at length so as to provide guidance to judicial officers and practitioners.
Purpose of Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
The Victorian court noted that the Act's purpose was to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and processes relating to civil proceedings in Victorian courts. The need to ensure that costs were reasonable and proportionate was a core objective.
The court noted that it is obliged to give effect to the overarching purpose of the Act "to facilitate the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of the real issues in dispute."
This is similar to the terms of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), where the overriding purpose of the Act is expressed to be to facilitate the just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.
Lawyers' overarching responsibility cannot be set aside because of instructions of client
Significantly, the Victorian court noted that the legal practitioner will not be relieved of this overarching responsibility because of the instructions of their client:
Level of representation required and extent of material to be filed with the court
The court also commented that the legal practitioner must give careful consideration to the level and extent of the representation that is necessary for a party:
The overarching obligation is also relevant to the extent of material to be filed with the court.
The court noted that the Act is designed to protect against the inappropriate use of the courts as a public resource:
Level of representation of applicants found to be not excessive
Each of the four applications for security for costs was supported by submissions that were to a large extent in the same terms. The court noted that the applicants were represented by seven counsel, three of them senior counsel.
The court accepted that each applicant had a separate and distinct interest and was entitled to separate representation, and the Act does not require a party to forfeit that right. The court also accepted that the parties were not overrepresented in this matter:
The court also noted that the conduct of counsel at the hearing itself did not breach the overarching obligation as there is no unnecessary duplication of submissions, with parties simply adopting the primary submissions and, when necessary, making "discrete and brief but important submissions which were relevant to the client's position." 
Material in application books found to be excessive and unnecessary
The court's real concern was with the material in the application books.
The court was provided with six application folders, comprising submissions, affidavit material, transcript and authorities running to over 2,700 pages. The court considered "much of this material was either peripheral to the application or entirely unnecessary." 
The court stated:
Solicitors for appellants penalised by cost orders
The respondents argued for indemnity costs. The court accepted that the applicants had not "engaged in unmeritorious or deliberate improper conduct such as would warrant the Court showing its disapproval and at the same time preventing the respondents being left out of pocket." 
The court did, however, penalise the solicitors for the appellants with the following orders:
- each applicant pay the respondent's costs
- each applicant's solicitor indemnify the applicant for 50% of the respondent's costs incurred as a consequence of the excessive or unnecessary quantum of the application books
- each applicant's solicitor be disallowed recovery from the applicants of 50% of the costs relating to preparation of the application books and the costs incidental thereto
The court further directed that the solicitors for each of the applicants provide their clients with a copy of the reasons of the court and of the orders.
Courts in NSW also take a dim view of excessive material being filed with court
In an earlier decision delivered by RS Hulme J in Harris v Villacare Pty Limited  NSWSC 452, following the hearing of an application for preliminary discovery, his Honour had cause to query whether the incurring of costs should be borne by the solicitors personally. Significantly, the judge's concern was the volume of material that had been filed by way of supporting affidavit by the defendant's solicitor. The affidavit was four and a half pages long and attached 78 pages of annexures separated by 25 dividers.
The judge referred to section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act and emphasised its requirement that the parties identify each relevant component of the "real issues in the dispute or proceedings". Hulme J was critical of the affidavit and went so far as to describe 90% of it as "a waste of paper" that failed to address the real issues in dispute.
Although the judge did not find any "serious neglect, serious incompetence or serious misconduct" by the actions of the defendant's solicitor, he was of the view that costs had been incurred "without reasonable cause".
Courts should not be deluged with unnecessary supporting documents
The quantum of the costs was small in this case, however it was apparent that the judge wanted to impress upon the solicitors involved the significance of the "overriding purpose" of the Civil Procedure Act.
Notably, he opined:
Lawyers must be wary of incurring excessive costs or risk penalties
It is now clear that, in both jurisdictions, legal practitioners must use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the costs incurred in connection with a proceeding are reasonable and proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues and the amount in dispute.
The courts will now examine the level of representation and the relevance of the material filed with the court. If the practitioner is found in the conduct of proceedings to have breached the overarching obligations, the practitioner personally may be ordered to pay the extra costs incurred by the other party and prevented from recovering those extra costs from the practitioner's own client.
|Melissa Fenton||Nigel Watson|