Ahmed v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia

[2019] WADC 48

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   AHMED -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2019] WADC 48

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED          :   5 APRIL 2019

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2870 of 2014

BETWEEN:   FAYSAL YUSEF AHMED

Plaintiff

AND

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Defendant

Catchwords:

Taxation of costs - Application for review - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 53 - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	Ms A Bishop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendant	:	DLA Piper

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN:

1. By order of 23 November 2018 the defendant was awarded the costs of its application for summary judgment.

2. The defendant later lodged its bill of costs and it was taxed on 18 February 2019.

3. The bill is comprised of five items and two disbursements.  The result of taxation was that the amount payable by the plaintiff pursuant to the order was assessed at $7650.55.

4. The parties were directed to file any Notice of Objection to any determination made in the course of taxation by 4.00 pm on 25 February 2019.

5. By notice of appeal dated 25 February 2019 that appears to be directed mainly to the order of 23 November 2018 the plaintiff refers to the taxation as follows.

   •On 18 February 2019, the defendant asks the plaintiff to pay $13,000.

   •18 February 2019, the district court made judgment that I have to pay the defendant amount of around $7,550.80.

   •The district court found that defendant calculation was exaggerated and there were a lot of errors.

   •I ask the court to revise the decision and cut the amount of payment $3,500.

6. Order 66 r 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court1971 establishes a process for review of taxation.  It provides as follows:

   (1)A party who contends that the Taxing Officer has made an error in principle in allowing or disallowing any item or part of an item in a bill of costs taxed by him may, at any time before a certificate of taxation dealing finally with that item is signed, … —

   (a)deliver to the other party interested in the allowance or disallowance and carry in before the Taxing Officer, an objection in writing to the allowance or disallowance specifying in the objection by a list, in a short and concise form, the items or parts of items objected to, and the grounds and reasons for the objections; and

   (b)thereupon apply to the Taxing Officer to review the taxation in respect of those items or parts.

7. In my opinion for the purposes of considering the application of r 53(1) the parts of the appeal to which I have referred do not amount to an objection because the plaintiff does not specify any item within the bill as having been the subject of any error in the course of its taxation. The plaintiff simply contends that the amount determined as payable under the order be reduced.

8. The objection is not within the scope of the rule and I will sign the certificate.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.

AC
Court Officer

5 APRIL 2019