ALLBEURY -v- CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION [2012] WASCA 84 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 84 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:19/2011	Heard:	13 OCTOBER 2011 & ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA	Delivered:	13/04/12
Supplementary Delivered:	25/05/12
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Each party to bear his or its own costs of the appeals
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TRISTAN ROGER ALLBEURY CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION CLOVIS MURHABAZI CHIKONGA STEPHEN LAURENCE SILVESTRO TROY CRISPIN SMITH
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Appellants successful on preliminary issue Respondent successful on the substantive appeals Each party to bear his or its own costs Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1) Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), s 5(1) Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1)
Case References:	Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84 Amaca Pty Ltd (Formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Moss [2007] WASCA 162 (S) Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) [1987] HCA 56; (1987) 164 CLR 15 Keet v Ward [2011] WASCA 139 Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) [1999] HCA 19; (1999) 198 CLR 435 Shire of Manjimup v Cheetham [2010] WASCA 225 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ALLBEURY -v- CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION [2012] WASCA 84 (S) CORAM : McLURE P

BUSS JA

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 13 OCTOBER 2011 & ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 13 APRIL 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 25 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 19 of 2011 BETWEEN : TRISTAN ROGER ALLBEURY

Appellant

AND

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CACV 20 of 2011 BETWEEN : CLOVIS MURHABAZI CHIKONGA

Appellant

AND

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION

Respondent

(Page 2)

FILE NO/S : CACV 21 of 2011 BETWEEN : STEPHEN LAURENCE SILVESTRO

Appellant

AND

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CACV 22 of 2011 BETWEEN : TROY CRISPIN SMITH

Appellant

AND

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MARTIN CJ

Citation : CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION -v- ALLBEURY, SILVESTRO, CHIKONGA, SMITH [No 2] [2011] WASC 26

File No : CIV 2870 of 2010, CIV 2871 of 2010, CIV 2872 of 2010, CIV 2875 of 2010

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Appellants successful on preliminary issue - Respondent successful on the substantive appeals - Each party to bear his or its own costs - Turns on own facts

(Page 3)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1)

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), s 5(1)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1)

Result:

Each party to bear his or its own costs of the appeals

Category: B

Representation:

CACV 19 of 2011

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr L M Levy SC

Respondent : Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASCA 84 (S)
Decision Date: 13 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondents, the Corruption and Crime Commission, against the appellants who were individuals involved in proceedings before the Commission. The dispute centred on the costs of the appeals, specifically whether the appellants, who were successful on a preliminary issue, should bear the costs of the proceedings. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the appellants, having succeeded on a preliminary issue, were entitled to an award of costs against the Commission, or if the Commission, having succeeded on the substantive appeals, should be awarded costs against the appellants. The Court had to determine the appropriate allocation of costs where each party was successful on different parts of the case.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principle that each party should bear their own costs when neither party has succeeded on the main issues. The Court found that the appellants were successful on a preliminary issue but did not succeed on the substantive appeals, while the Commission was successful on the substantive appeals but not on the preliminary issue. Consequently, neither party was entirely successful or unsuccessful, and each party was required to bear their own costs. The Court held that the costs should turn on the own facts of the case, meaning the costs should be allocated based on the specific outcomes in this instance.

In light of the reasoning, the Court ordered that each party was to bear its own costs of the appeals. This outcome reflects the principle that costs should follow the event, but in cases where neither party is wholly successful, each party must bear their own costs. The final orders were clear and concise, ensuring that each party was responsible for their own legal expenses arising from the appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each party to bear his or its own costs of the appeals

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.