BOQ Equipment Finance Ltd v Stacy [No 2]
[2016] WADC 133
•2 SEPTEMBER 2016
BOQ EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD -v- STACY [No 2] [2016] WADC 133
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WADC 133 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2903/2014 | 22 AUGUST 2016 | |
| Coram: | PETRUSA DCJ | 2/09/16 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plaintiff pay the defendants' costs fixed in the sum of $5,742 forthwith | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BOQ EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD JENNIFER FAY STACY DAVID NOEL STACY MANDURAH CONCRETE PUMPING PTY LTD ASTINA HOLDINGS PTY LTD PORT FORM PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Costs |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
JENNIFER FAY STACY
First Defendant
DAVID NOEL STACY
Second Defendant
MANDURAH CONCRETE PUMPING PTY LTD
Third Defendant
ASTINA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Fourth Defendant
PORT FORM PTY LTD
Fifth Defendant
Catchwords:
Costs
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Plaintiff pay the defendants' costs fixed in the sum of $5,742 forthwith
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : No appearance
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Third Defendant : No appearance
Fourth Defendant : No appearance
Fifth Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Mills Oakley
First Defendant : Law Direct
Second Defendant : Law Direct
Third Defendant : Law Direct
Fourth Defendant : Law Direct
Fifth Defendant : Law Direct
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
1 PETRUSA DCJ: On 22 August 2016 I heard and determined an application to remove this action from the inactive cases list. I ordered that the action be removed from the list. At the hearing I indicated that I would award costs in the favour of the defendants and was prepared to do so for a fixed sum. I gave the parties an opportunity to provide submissions as to the quantum of the costs and it was agreed that I would make orders on the papers filed. I have subsequently received submissions from the defendants dated 29 August 2016 and from the plaintiff dated 2 September 2016.
2 The defendants' claim cost in the sum of $21, 747. This sum has not been calculated in accordance with the Supreme Court Scale of Costs 2016 nor has any regard been had to the scale of costs in calculation of the amount sought. Further, the amount sought by the defendants exceeds the maximum amount recoverable under the scale by $9,867. I consider the amount claimed to be excessive.
3 In contrast, I have considered the submissions made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's submissions are made by reference to the scale and in my view are more than generous given the nature of the proceedings, the documents involved in the proceeding and the legal complexity of the issues raised. Accordingly, I order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs fixed in the sum of $5,742 forthwith.
0
0
1