Client wanted to engage directly with immigration minister's lawyers
A single justice of Australia’s High Court granted leave for Maddocks to withdraw as the applicant’s solicitors and for the respondent minister for immigration, citizenship, migrant services, and multicultural affairs to file a bill of costs in this proceeding.
In DBO19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2026] HCASJ 8, the applicant applied for special leave to appeal the Federal Court’s judgment and order dated 8 October 2021 before the High Court.
On 17 February 2023, the High Court denied the application with costs. In an email dated 4 September 2023, the applicant stated that he did not want Maddocks to continue communicating with the minister's lawyers, as he would engage directly with them and resolve the cost issue on his own.
Maddocks responded via email that it would inform the minister’s solicitors that he was no longer instructing the firm to represent him in the proceeding.
On 16 March 2026, the minister applied for leave to file a bill of costs as a step in the proceeding under r 4.03.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The minister relied on affidavits dated 16 March 2026 and 26 March 2026.
Special counsel advised the applicant that Maddocks would pursue leave to withdraw as his solicitors if it did not hear from him by 1 April 2026. Maddocks received no reply from the applicant by that deadline.
On 2 April 2026, Maddocks applied for leave to cease acting as the applicant’s solicitors on the record under r 6.02.5 of the High Court Rules. Special counsel filed an affidavit supporting the application.
Justice James Edelman of the High Court of Australia granted Maddocks’ and the respondent minister’s applications under rr 6.02.5(c) and 4.03.2 of the High Court Rules. He ordered Maddocks to serve a sealed copy of the order on all other parties.
Regarding Maddocks’ application to withdraw as the applicant’s solicitors, Justice Edelman noted that the firm appeared to be invoking r 6.02.5(c). He considered it appropriate to grant leave in the circumstances.
Justice Edelman then addressed the minister’s application for leave to file a bill of costs.
Regarding the delay in communicating with the applicant, Justice Edelman described the explanation for the inaction as weak, given the lack of a reason expressly justifying it. However, Edelman characterised the weak reason as sufficient in the circumstances.
Justice Edelman found it appropriate not to award application costs to the minister, who did not seek such costs.
