Judge says solicitors breached duty to court, acted in unreasonable and unjustified way
In awarding indemnity costs against the plaintiff’s solicitors in negligence proceedings, the Victoria Supreme Court ruled that the law firm engaged in unreasonable and unjustified action that did not align with the objectives of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
In Lamont v The Royal Women's Hospital (No 4) [2026] VSC 687, the plaintiff commenced negligence proceedings concerning the adoption of her baby. She asserted that either the social worker who handled the adoption or the hospital staff coerced or forced her to give up her child.
In her negligence claim against the first defendant, the plaintiff alleged that the infant’s transfer from the Royal Women’s Hospital to the Methodist Babies’ Home lacked any legal foundation or basis and amounted to abduction.
On the other hand, in her negligence claim against the second defendant, the plaintiff argued that she did not agree to the baby’s adoption. She said she did not sign the consent form.
On 24 July 2026, the Victoria Supreme Court informed the parties that it would hand down its judgment on 30 July 2026.
On 29 July 2026, the plaintiff filed a 28 July 2026 summons seeking to defer the delivery of judgment until the determination of the summons following a 6 August 2026 hearing in proceeding CI-24-05271 and after the making of an application to reopen the trial.
Proceeding CI-24-05271 involved an application to relieve the plaintiff and her solicitors of their obligations under Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 in connection with four documents.
On 31 July 2026, the Victoria Supreme Court handed down its judgment.
As against the plaintiff’s solicitors, the two defendants applied for indemnity costs associated with the plaintiff’s application to defer the delivery of judgment.
The Victoria Supreme Court ordered the firm to pay both defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis in relation to the deferral application.
The court considered indemnity costs appropriate because the deferral application abused the process and lacked merit, and because the plaintiff’s solicitors acted in breach of their duty to the court.
Based on the following findings, the Victoria Supreme Court deemed it apparent from the outset that any possible application to reopen the case would be doomed to failure:
The court noted that the deferral application’s outcome could impact both defendants’ interests.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
On 14 August 2026, the Victoria Supreme Court referred an accused’s application, which wanted to adjourn his proceedings to the Drug Court Division, to a different magistrate for a hearing and determination under the law.
In a group proceeding against Entain Group Pty Limited under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), the Victoria Supreme Court issued a 20 July 2026 decision fixing legal costs at 33 percent of any award or settlement the group might recover.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
