ALLIANCE CONTRACTING PTY LTD -v- JAMES [2014] WASC 212 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 212 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1022/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	31/07/14
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Some special costs orders made in favour of second respondent
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ALLIANCE CONTRACTING PTY LTD LAURIE EDMOND JAMES TENIX SDR PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Whether special costs orders should be made
Legislation:	Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280(2)
Case References:	Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2012] WASC 210 (S2) Redhill Iron Ore Ltd v API Management Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 323 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ALLIANCE CONTRACTING PTY LTD -v- JAMES [2014] WASC 212 (S) CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 31 JULY 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1022 of 2014 BETWEEN : ALLIANCE CONTRACTING PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

LAURIE EDMOND JAMES

First Respondent

TENIX SDR PTY LTD

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether special costs orders should be made

Legislation:

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280(2)

Result:

Some special costs orders made in favour of second respondent

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : No appearance

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : Lavan Legal

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

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

Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212
Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2012] WASC 210 (S2)
Redhill Iron Ore Ltd v API Management Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 323 (S)

BEECH J

Introduction

1 On 19 June 2014, I dismissed Alliance's application for relief in respect of an adjudication made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA).1 I ordered that the application be dismissed and made orders for the exchange of affidavits and submissions on the question of costs, with that question to be dealt with on the papers. These reasons deal with the question of the costs of the action.

2 It is not in dispute that the costs of the application should follow the event, so that Alliance should pay Tenix's costs of the proceedings. Tenix seeks special costs orders under s 280(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), lifting the limits under the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2012 (WA) (the Scale). Alliance opposes the making of any special costs orders.

Special costs orders - general principles

3 The principles are well established, and were not in dispute.

4 Section 280(2) of the Legal Profession Act provides in substance that if a court is of the opinion that the amount of costs allowable in respect of a matter under a costs determination is inadequate because of the unusual difficulty, complexity or importance of the matter, the court may make appropriate orders increasing or removing the limits.

5 The parties agreed that the…

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.

Continue reading Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James

Details

AGLC: Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 (S)
Case: [2014] WASC 212 (S)
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd, the applicant, filed an application against James, the second respondent, concerning an order for special costs. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant sought special costs based on the second respondent's conduct during the proceedings, including allegations of delay and uncooperative behaviour.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the second respondent's conduct warranted an order for special costs. The court had to consider the nature of the conduct, the extent to which it impacted the proceedings, and whether it justified an exceptional costs order. Additionally, the court examined the overall fairness and efficiency of the litigation process, weighing the need to deter similar conduct in future cases against the potential injustice of penalising the second respondent.

The court found that while the second respondent's conduct was indeed problematic, it did not reach the threshold of exceptional circumstances necessary for a special costs order. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and timeliness in litigation but concluded that the existing cost provisions adequately addressed the issues. The court also noted that making a special costs order could potentially set a precedent that might be unjustly applied in similar cases. Consequently, the court decided against making a special costs order but did order that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application, subject to certain conditions.

The final orders included that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed, subject to certain limitations. There was no order regarding the costs of the application for costs orders, and the court removed the limit on maximum time in certain items of the Scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed, subject to par 2.

2. There be no order as to the costs of the application for costs orders.

3. The limit as to maximum time in items 28(b) and 28(d) of the Scale be removed.

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.