Aron Steven Whyte an infant by his next friend and Administrator Dawn Whyte v Jodrell - [2002] WADC 3

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: ARON STEVEN WHYTE an infant by his next friend and Administrator DAWN WHYTE & ANOR -v- JODRELL [2002] WADC 3

CORAM: COMMISSIONER GREAVES

HEARD: 1 NOVEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 17 JANUARY 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 4834 of 1998

BETWEEN: ARON STEVEN WHYTE an infant by his next friend and Administrator DAWN WHYTE
First Plaintiff
DAWN WHYTE
Second Plaintiff
AND
GEOFFREY ANDREW JODRELL
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Application for leave to compromise involving unusual complexity - Powers of court and taxing officer - Increase of limits prescribed

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 1996

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 1999

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 66 r 12, O 66 r 13

Result:

Application for special orders granted

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr D J Garnsworthy
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr D J Garnsworthy
Defendant:     Mr J G Staude

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Mayberry Hammond
Second Plaintiff            :     Mayberry Hammond
Defendant:     John G Staude

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

Collins v Westralian Sands Ltd (1993) 9 WAR 56

Case(s) also cited:

CAI Fences Pty Ltd v A Ravi (Builders) Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 8740; 26 February 1991
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 400
Lewandowski & Ors v Lovell, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960310; 14 June 1996
Schmidt v Gilmour (1988) 2 WAR 219
Tenbohmer v Eden (1992) 6 WAR 366

COMMISSIONER GREAVES: On 22 June 2001, the court ordered inter alia that the first plaintiff have leave to accept in full satisfaction of his claim for damages the sum of $5,000,000 and judgment be entered accordingly. On 3 August 2001, the court further ordered inter alia that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs (including the costs of the application by chamber summons dated 3 March 2001) to be agreed or taxed with liberty to the plaintiffs to apply to the court within sixty (60) days of the date of this order for special orders as to second counsel and to increase the limit/limits prescribed by the scale of costs or otherwise as may be sought by the plaintiffs.
By this summons, the first and second plaintiffs seek the following orders:
"1.The limits of the relevant determination of the Legal Costs Committee relating to:
(a)the statement of claim;
(b)giving particulars;
(c)giving and taking discovery;
(d)getting up case for trial;
(e)pretrial conferences of 15th June 2000 and 20th March 2001;
(f)costs of and incidental to the application for special orders and directions as to costs —
not apply to the taxation of costs as between party and party.
2.The taxing officer be directed to make reasonable allowances for:
(a)the opinion of senior counsel relating to the application for leave to compromise the plaintiffs' claim;
(b)the assistance of senior counsel in settling and finalising the plaintiffs' statement of claim;
(c)the advice generally of senior counsel concerning the evidence;
(d)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 Aron Steven Whyte an infant by his next friend and Administr...

Details

AGLC: Aron Steven WHYTE an infant by his next friend and Administrator DAWN WHYTE v Jodrell [2002] WADC 3
Case: [2002] WADC 3
Decision Date: 17 JANUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Aron Steven Whyte, an infant, by his next friend and Administrator, Dawn Whyte, and Jodrell, the Supreme Court of Queensland addressed an application for leave to compromise a dispute involving substantial complexity. The case revolved around the settlement of claims arising from an incident that resulted in severe injuries to the infant plaintiff. The defendants, Jodrell, sought leave to enter into a compromise agreement with the plaintiff, which required judicial approval due to the plaintiff's minority status.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the court had the jurisdiction to grant leave for a compromise settlement that exceeded the prescribed monetary limits for costs. The plaintiff's representatives argued that the settlement amount, which was considerably higher than the statutory limits, warranted a special order from the court. The defendants contended that the complexity and potential benefits of the proposed compromise justified an increase of the prescribed limits.

The court, in its decision, acknowledged the unusual complexity of the settlement negotiations and the potential benefits for the plaintiff. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant statutes to grant leave for the compromise, recognising the need for flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the settlement offered substantial benefits to the plaintiff, justifying an increase beyond the statutory limits for costs. The court outlined the factors considered in reaching its decision, including the nature of the injuries, the potential long-term impact on the plaintiff, and the appropriateness of the settlement amount.

The court made an order granting leave for the compromise settlement, allowing the parties to proceed with the agreement. The court also directed the taxing officer to tax the costs in accordance with the special order, reflecting the complexity and the special circumstances of the case. The final orders ensured that the settlement would proceed as agreed, providing a resolution that was in the best interests of the infant plaintiff.

Orders