When the Rules Are Hidden: Power, Fairness, and the Price of Legal Work

Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Tax Law › Addy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] HCA 34

Published: 18 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)

Case Summary - the principle that still matters

In Addy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] HCA 34, the High Court confronted a simple but profound idea: fairness requires that the rules affecting a person must be visible and consistent, especially where a system’s complexity makes unequal treatment easy to hide.

The Court held:

“The question is whether that more burdensome taxation was imposed on Ms Addy owing to her nationality. The short answer is ‘yes’.”

The reasoning rested on a clear comparator: two people in the same circumstances must not face different burdens simply because one does not see, or cannot detect, the rules operating against them.

Although the judgment concerned international tax law, the underlying principle echoes far beyond taxation: people cannot meaningfully protect their rights if the system makes the real cost or burden invisible.

Why It Still Matters -
the modern risk of invisible burdens

Most Australians believe that when they hire a lawyer, they decide what they will pay.

But the structure of the traditional model tells a different story.

To understand whether a quote is realistic, a client must fund the same early legal work again and again - each lawyer must:

• review the facts,

• identify the legal issues,

• outline options, and

• prepare a costed strategy.

This “front-end analysis” is the most expensive part. It must be done before any honest estimate can be given. So clients who want more than one quote must pay multiple lawyers before they even know which strategy is sound.

Most cannot afford that test.

And so, as Justice Kirby often reminded, power imbalances thrive where information is asymmetrical.
As Carnegie would observe, people naturally trust the first professional who treats them warmly.
And as Dr Carmen Simon’s work shows, the brain remembers whatever is easiest to process - which often means “the first quote feels right”.

Together, these forces create a quiet but significant hazard:

Clients believe they are choosing freely, but they are choosing in the dark.

How to Avoid the Same Trap -
structural cost safety

The risk exposed in Addy, a hidden burden falling on one group without their visibility, mirrors the everyday challenge clients face: they cannot see whether a legal quote hides future cost exposure.

The most relevant Clean Law safeguard for this risk is Cost Safety (One-Path Funding).

Why this safeguard fits the judgment’s lesson

Just as the High Court required a transparent and fair comparator, cost safety gives clients the visibility they need to make a decision based on real information rather than hope or marketing.

How the safeguard works

Clean Law completes the early case-mapping once, on a fixed fee.
This creates a single, unified summary - the same factual baseline, the same procedural options.

From that baseline, clients can obtain multiple tenders from independent courtroom lawyers of their own shortlist, without paying for the same analysis repeatedly.

This structure:

• removes the hidden burden of duplicated fees,

• exposes differences in strategy and pricing,

• keeps value decisions with the client, and

• prevents the very asymmetry that undermines visibility in the traditional model.

In plain terms:

Two lawyers often cost less than one - because you fund one path, not both.

Clients often find that this structure makes the cost landscape visible in a way the traditional model cannot: they can compare, question, and choose based on evidence, not guesswork.

Reflection

The lesson from Addy is not confined to tax treaties. It is a reminder that fairness requires transparency, and transparency requires structure.

In litigation, the stakes are personal - homes, businesses, reputations. Clear sight of cost, options, and timing is not a luxury; it is what allows clients to act with dignity and control.

Clean Law’s model is designed so clients do not bear invisible burdens.
They see the rules, the costs, and the choices - before committing.

Cost Safety

Many readers want to understand how one-path funding makes the early comparison possible. This page explains the structure that prevents duplicated costs and gives clients real freedom of choice.

Others may wish to verify independence before engaging any lawyer. Our governance pages show the systems, trust-account audits, ACNC-governed reporting, and no-referral-fee rules, that keep incentives aligned and conflicts visible.
See how our independence is audited

Or, if your matter is time-sensitive:
Discuss your situation confidentially

By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.

Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.