The Court of Appeal authorised former solicitors H. J. Ward & Co. to participate in the adjudication of their High Court costs following Cheng Zhang’s successful appeal, but declined to make further orders sought by Zhang in a later letter.
In a ruling delivered on 10 May 2021, the court said the solicitors could take part in the party-and-party taxation or adjudication of the High Court costs, limited to their bill of costs already lodged with the costs office. It also directed Stephen Farrell to pay the solicitors the amount agreed or, if no agreement was reached, the amount later taxed or adjudicated and ascertained. Zhang had been notified of the solicitors’ request and did not object.
The ruling followed the Court of Appeal’s principal judgment of 5 March 2021, which allowed Zhang’s appeal and dismissed Farrell’s cross-appeal. The court had provisionally indicated that Zhang, who was unrepresented on appeal, should receive her reasonable expenses and her High Court costs from the period when she had legal representation, with those costs to be assessed by reference to the Court of Appeal’s award. It had invited written submissions within 14 days from any party seeking a different costs order.
The court also noted an earlier High Court order, made on 16 August 2018 following an application by H. J. Ward & Co., charging damages and costs recovered by Zhang with her costs, including solicitor-and-client costs once taxed and ascertained.
In correspondence dated 6 April 2021, Zhang sought additional orders on matters beyond the permitted costs submissions. These included a request to review a 30 October 2020 order by Costello J. refusing her application to introduce new evidence on appeal, access to the digital audio recording of that hearing, and directions concerning the solicitors’ bill. She also sought to prevent a stay of the damages or costs order, although no stay application had been made.
The Court of Appeal said Zhang’s submissions were late and exceeded the permitted word limit. It held the requested matters fell outside the permission to address costs, the appeal was finally concluded, and there was no basis for it to interfere with Costello J.’s order. The court said any such issue would be for the Supreme Court if it granted Zhang leave to appeal. It made no further orders beyond the costs order proposed in the principal judgment and the orders sought by H. J. Ward & Co.