Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith - [2014] ACTSC 396

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 396
Hearing Date(s):	2 December 2014
DecisionDate:	2 December 2014
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	Defendant to pay the costs of the Plaintiff
Category:	Costs
Catchwords:	COSTS − Whether to depart from costs following the event
Legislation Cited:	Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) s 183 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Lahoud v Lahoud [2011] NSWSC 1186 Vieira v O’Shea (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 121 Miwa Pty Ld v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344
Parties:	Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Roland Smith (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Wayne Sharwood (Plaintiff) Mr Robert Crowe SC (Defendant)
Solicitors: Minter Ellison (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SC 155 of 2014

Robinson AJ:

These are my reasons for making an order for costs in this proceeding on 2 December 2014.

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed an entitlement to a special order as to costs arising out of offers made in correspondence and communications between the parties during the period 9 May 2014 to 27 November 2014.

Some background explanation is necessary. At 8am on 12 January 2007, Ms Kim De Britt was a passenger in the front seat of a stationary car in Coulter Drive waiting to turn left into Belconnen Way. The car in which she was travelling was struck in the rear by a car driven by the Defendant, Rowland Smith. That led to Ms De Britt bringing an action in common law for negligence against Mr Smith.

As it happened, on that day, Ms De Britt was travelling to her workplace. She subsequently made workers compensation claims against her employer, Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) P/L. She has been in receipt of workers compensation for the injuries and disabilities said to have occurred as a result of that motor vehicle accident. Her employer sought to recover from Mr Smith the value of the workers compensation payments made. The employer brought the current proceedings in its name to achieve that end.

By an order made on 19 November 2014, the two proceedings were heard together.

On 1 December 2014, I commenced the hearing of the two proceedings. As between Ms De Britt and Mr Smith, the matter proceeded as an assessment, as would be expected in the case of a rear end collision.

After hearing an opening address from counsel for Ms De Britt, I was informed that the proceeding between Ms De Britt and Mr Smith had been conditionally settled. I was informed that because of the nature of Ms De Britt’s current disabilities it would be necessary to appoint a tutor and have the Court approve that settlement. This process was undertaken by a different judge so that, if the Court failed to approve the proposed settlement, those proceedings could be…

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 Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith 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] ACTSC 396
Decision Date: 2 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Booz Allen Hamilton (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith was heard. The plaintiff, Booz Allen Hamilton, sought to enforce a contract for professional services against the defendant, Smith. The dispute arose from a disagreement over the payment of fees due under the contract. The primary focus of the case was on the appropriate costs to be awarded following the plaintiff's successful outcome. The court had to decide whether to adhere to the usual practice of costs following the event or to make a special order regarding the costs due to the nature of the dispute and the parties' conduct.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the court should depart from the usual practice of awarding costs following the event. This consideration was necessary given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties. The plaintiff argued for the standard costs order, while the defendant contended that a special order should be made due to the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties. The court needed to assess these arguments and decide on the appropriate costs order.

The Federal Court found that the usual practice of awarding costs following the event was appropriate in this case. The court considered the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties, but ultimately concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard costs order. The plaintiff's conduct was deemed reasonable, and the court found no grounds to impose a special order on costs. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff as per the usual practice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant to pay the costs of the Plaintiff

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.