BLANKET -v- THE HOUSING AUTHORITY [2014] WASC 409 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 409 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1230/2013	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	27/03/15
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs order made in favour of the respondent
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KAREN MARIE BLANKET THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Catchwords:	Costs Whether special costs order should be made Whether circumstances justify departure from the usual order as to costs Public interest litigation Test case Access to justice Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Blanket v The Housing Authority [2014] WASC 409 Collard v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2013] WASC 455 (S) Kidd v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 99 (S) Nettheim v Minister for Planning and Local Government (No 2) (Unreported, NSWLEC, 28 September 1988) Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Roe v The Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation (WA) [2011] WASCA 57 (S) Ruddock v Vadarlis (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229 Wilderness Society Inc v Turnbull, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources [2007] FCA 1863; (2007) 98 ALD 651

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : BLANKET -v- THE HOUSING AUTHORITY [2014] WASC 409 (S) CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1230 of 2013

CIV 1232 of 2013

BETWEEN : KAREN MARIE BLANKET

Applicant

AND

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY

Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether special costs order should be made - Whether circumstances justify departure from the usual order as to costs - Public interest litigation - Test case - Access to justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs order made in favour of the respondent

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : No appearance

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : Fremantle Community Legal Centre

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Blanket v The Housing Authority [2014] WASC 409
Collard v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2013] WASC 455 (S)
Kidd v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 99 (S)
Nettheim v Minister for Planning and Local Government (No 2) (Unreported, NSWLEC, 28 September 1988)
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Roe v The Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation (WA) [2011] WASCA 57 (S)
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229
Wilderness Society Inc v Turnbull, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources [2007] FCA 1863; (2007) 98 ALD 651

1 PRITCHARD J: In these Applications, Ms Blanket's application for judicial review of a decision of the Housing Authority (the Authority), and for a review of the decision of a Magistrate pursuant to s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), were dismissed. Following the delivery of my…

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 Blanket v The Housing Authority 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: [2014] WASC 409 (S)
Decision Date: 27/03/15

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Blanket v The Housing Authority, the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision made by the Housing Authority in relation to their housing arrangements. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge was required to determine whether a special costs order should be made in favour of the respondent, the Housing Authority. The plaintiff argued that the decision was unjust and that the circumstances justified a departure from the usual order as to costs, given the public interest nature of the litigation and the fact that the case had been brought as a test case. The plaintiff also argued that the decision had significant implications for access to justice.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances of the case warranted a departure from the usual order as to costs, which typically requires the losing party to pay the winner's costs. The court was required to balance the public interest in ensuring access to justice with the need to ensure that legal proceedings are not used as a means of harassment or to achieve an unfair advantage. The court also had to consider the test case nature of the litigation and the potential implications of the decision for other parties in similar circumstances.

In determining the matter, the court found that the public interest in ensuring access to justice was not sufficient to justify a departure from the usual order as to costs. The court noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the usual order would result in an unfair outcome or that it would deter others from bringing similar test cases in the future. The court also found that the test case nature of the litigation did not, in and of itself, justify a departure from the usual order as to costs. The court held that the usual order as to costs should apply, and made a costs order in favour of the respondent.

In light of the above, the court made a costs order in favour of the respondent, the Housing Authority. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The court held that the public interest in ensuring access to justice did not outweigh the need to ensure that legal proceedings were not used as a means of harassment or to achieve an unfair advantage. The court also found that the test case nature of the litigation did not, in and of itself, justify a departure from the usual order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs order made in favour of the respondent

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.