• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The procedural history began on 2 May 2023, when Toyne filed an application for special leave to appeal. As Steward J records at [1], the proposed appeal was from a New South Wales Court of Appeal judgment that had granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and permanently stayed District Court proceedings 2021/195454. The underlying Court of Appeal decision is identified in footnote [2] as Stokes v Toyne [2023] NSWCA 59. Toyne’s solicitor had been retained on a pro bono basis.

The High Court heard the special leave application on 20 October 2023 and refused it with costs: [2]. The costs issue remained active later. On 11 October 2024, the solicitor emailed Toyne to say that the respondent had applied for an assessment of costs, that the firm’s retainer had ended, and that the firm intended to seek permission to withdraw unless Toyne wished to receive further assistance: [3]. The respondent prepared a bill of costs on 21 October 2024: [4].

On 29 October 2024, the solicitor told Toyne by email that she did not intend to retain the firm in relation to the costs application and that the firm would seek leave to withdraw: [5]. Steward J expressly noted that the available material did not reveal whether this email responded to a communication from Toyne or was sent because there had been no response to the earlier email: [5]. The solicitor then filed the withdrawal application on 21 November 2024, supported by an affidavit and correspondence: [6].

Steward J granted the application. The three orders required the solicitor to serve a copy of the order on both parties and to give the Court and respondent written notice of Toyne’s last known address for service. The costs assessment itself was not resolved by this judgment.

Why the court decided this way

The stated basis for the application was r 6.02.5(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth): [6]. The judgment does not reproduce the full text of that rule. It does, however, identify a relevant requirement: before applying to withdraw, the solicitor had to give Toyne written notice of the intention to seek leave: [7].

The judge assessed whether that requirement had been met by reference to the solicitor’s affidavit and the correspondence exhibited to it. Having considered those materials, Steward J was “satisfied” that the solicitor had given the required notice before making the application: [7]. This is a finding about the evidence before the Court in this particular application. The reasons do not describe every item of correspondence or provide a general checklist for satisfying the notice requirement.

The judge also considered whether withdrawal was appropriate “in all the circumstances”: [7]. The circumstances recorded include the end of the retainer, the solicitor’s communication with Toyne about possible further assistance, and Toyne’s reported decision not to retain the firm for the respondent’s costs application: [3], [5]. The judge did not state that any single fact was decisive. Nor did the judgment treat the uncertainty about whether the 29 October email followed a response as preventing the grant of leave. It records that uncertainty, then states the overall findings on notice and appropriateness: [5], [7].

The orders following the grant of leave addressed the practical transition. The solicitor was required to serve the order on Toyne and Stokes and to give the Court and Stokes written notice of Toyne’s last known address for service. Those directions appear in the orders rather than in a separate explanation of their rationale.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment is not framed as a development or clarification of the law. It applies the procedural rule identified in the solicitor’s application to the specific evidence before Steward J. The source text therefore supports a narrow account of what the Court decided, not a broad statement about every circumstance in which a solicitor may withdraw.

Before the order, the solicitor remained the solicitor for Toyne in the High Court proceeding and had applied for permission to withdraw. The application was made under r 6.02.5(c), and the Court considered whether prior written notice had been given and whether withdrawal was appropriate: [6]–[7]. After the order, the solicitor had leave to withdraw, subject to the ordered steps concerning service and the last known address for service.

The judgment does not set out the earlier state of the law in detail, compare competing interpretations of r 6.02.5(c), or cite prior decisions about solicitor withdrawal. It also does not say that it changed the operation of the rule. Any account of broader doctrinal change would go beyond the reasons supplied.

The special leave refusal is part of the procedural history, not a ruling addressed in the December 2024 reasons. At [2], the judge records that the application was refused with costs. The present judgment concerns the solicitor’s later withdrawal application. It should not be read as a decision on whether the respondent’s costs were properly incurred or what amount might be assessed.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [7], Steward J states: “I am satisfied that the applicant's solicitor has complied with the requirement under r 6.02.5(c) of the Rules to give notice in writing to the applicant of the solicitor's intention to apply for leave to withdraw prior to making the application to this Court.”

In plain English, the judge accepted that Toyne had been given written notice before the solicitor formally asked the Court for permission to withdraw. The finding is based on the affidavit and correspondence placed before the Court, as described at [6]–[7]. The reasons do not specify a universal form or wording for such notice.

The judge then states at [7]: “I am further satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate for leave to withdraw to be granted.”

This means the judge considered the circumstances of this application sufficient to grant permission. The words “in all the circumstances” indicate an overall assessment, but the judgment does not provide a detailed weighting of each circumstance or announce a general test beyond the rule-based assessment described.

At [5], the reasons say: “It is not apparent from the materials before the Court whether the email sent to the applicant on this date was sent in response to some communication from the applicant, or in the absence of any response to the solicitor's email of 11 October 2024.”

This is a candid statement about an evidentiary uncertainty. Its inclusion matters because the judge noted the uncertainty but still found the notice requirement satisfied on the full material before the Court: [7]. It would be inaccurate to infer that the judge resolved the question of whether Toyne had replied.

The operative orders add practical directions: the solicitor had to serve the order on both parties and give written notice of Toyne’s last known address for service to the Court and the respondent. These directions should be read as specific orders in this proceeding, not as a statement that every withdrawal application necessarily produces identical directions.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a procedural setting where a solicitor on the record applies to withdraw under r 6.02.5(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), and the Court must consider whether written notice was given to the client before the application was filed. The facts here involved a retainer that had ended, a pro bono representation, a refused special leave application, and a later costs application by the respondent: [1]–[6].

The judgment may be useful as an example of the Court examining documentary material, including an affidavit and correspondence, to decide whether the prior-notice requirement was met: [6]–[7]. It also illustrates that the Court may make practical directions about service and a client’s last known address when granting leave.

Its reach should not be overstated. The reasons do not address a contested withdrawal application, a client who opposed withdrawal, a case where no prior written notice was provided, or the consequences of defective notice. They do not say whether the result would be the same where a retainer remained active, where a hearing was imminent, or where withdrawal might cause a different procedural difficulty. Those situations are not decided by this judgment.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of any later decision applying, distinguishing, or interpreting Toyne v Stokes [2024] HCASJ 44. The text itself can establish only what Steward J decided on 19 December 2024. It cannot establish how later courts have treated the decision.

The judgment refers to Stokes v Toyne [2023] NSWCA 59 in footnote [2], as the Court of Appeal decision from which Toyne sought special leave. That is an earlier decision in the procedural history, not a later court’s treatment of the December 2024 withdrawal ruling. The High Court reasons do not analyse the NSW Court of Appeal’s reasoning.

Accordingly, no claim about the decision’s subsequent precedential status or treatment can be drawn from the supplied text. Any assessment of later treatment would require later judgments or other legal sources, which are not included here.

Still-open questions

The reasons do not reproduce the full wording of r 6.02.5(c), so they do not supply a comprehensive account of all the conditions or procedure under that rule. They establish that the judge considered prior written notice required and found that requirement met on the evidence before him: [7].

The judgment does not explain what form or level of detail the written notice must contain, how much time must elapse between notice and the application, or what should happen if the client does not respond. Nor does it decide what evidence would be sufficient in a case where the correspondence is disputed. These are questions the short reasons leave unanswered, rather than issues resolved by implication.

The judgment also does not determine the respondent’s costs application. It records the application for assessment and the preparation of a bill of costs: [3]–[4]. The amount or assessment of costs is outside the disposition. Similarly, the reasons do not revisit the refusal of special leave or the underlying District Court proceedings.

This analysis is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on it, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.