BOSCO & ANOR -v- SOLOMON BROTHERS [2006] WASC 307

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 307
Case No:	LPA:20/2006	Heard:	30 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	20/12/06
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Extension refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GIZELLA SUZANNE BOSCO ROLAND CHARLES BOSCO SOLOMON BROTHERS
Catchwords:	Taxation of costs Application by parties charged to extend time to request itemised bill Appeal from Registrar Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 228(2)(a)(iii), s 232(3)
Case References:	Giampiccolo & Anor v Valenti (1983) FLC 91-344 Harrison v Hocking [2000] WASC 188 Hay v Butler & Crooks (a firm) (1991) 7 WAR 333 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 Re Maher v Messrs Stedman, Cameron, Meares and Hall (1980) FLC 90-889 A & D Douglas Pty Ltd v Lawyers Private Mortgages Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 690 Atlas Corp Pty Ltd v Kalyk [2001] NSWCA 10 Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon [2006] HCA 32 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 Conlan v Registrar of Titles (2001) 24 WAR 299 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543 Dobree v Hoffman (1996) 18 WAR 36 Enterprise RentACar Co v Shapiro, Cohen, Andrews, Finlayson (1988) 157 DLR (4th) 322 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395 Giannarelli v Wraith (No 2) (1991) 171 CLR 592 Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47 Henderson Corporation Pty Ltd v Hewitt [2005] WASC 165 In the Marriage of McMahon (1976) 25 FLR 292 In the Marriage of O'Toole (1991) 105 FLR 339 In the Marriage of Tormsen (1993) 18 Fam LR 232 Itek Graphix Pty Ltd v Elliot (2002) 54 NSWLR 207 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lawecki v Marcel Kalfus & Co (1985) FLC 91644 Maguire v Makaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449 Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120 Mickelberg v 6PR Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 267 Ord River Land Corporation Pty Ltd v Adams & Ors CIV 1543 of 2000 Project Planning and Management (WA) Pty Ltd v Kinrade Australia Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 25 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 152 CLR 328 R v Bolton; Ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514 Raeside Pty Ltd v Jymcroe Valley Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7196; 18 July 1988 Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1965] 1 WLR 8 Re Ladner Downs and Crowley (1987) 41 DLR (4th) 403 Retail Equity Pty Ltd v Murie and Edward, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940163; 31 March 1994 Sandgate Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors v Ionnou Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors CIV 1010 of 2000 Sargood Brothers v Commonwealth (1910) 11 CLR 258 Selosse v Whitten, unreported; SCt of NSW (Graham AJ); 26 August 1997

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 Bosco v Solomon Brothers 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: [2006] WASC 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bosco v Solomon Brothers was heard by Master Sanderson in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The matter involved an appeal against the decision of Registrar Johnston regarding the taxation of costs. The parties charged, Gizelsa Suzanne Bosco and Roland Charles Bosco, sought an extension of time to request an itemised bill in taxable form, as per Section 232(3) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). The practitioner, Solomon Brothers, appealed the Registrar's decision to grant the extension and sought costs. The legal issues in this case revolved around the discretion of the court to grant an extension of time to request an itemised bill and the factors to be considered in exercising this discretion. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the onus lies on the party charged to convince the court that an extension should be granted. The court considered various factors, including the delay in requesting taxation, the existence of independent legal advice for the parties charged, and the potential prejudice to the practitioner if the extension were granted. The court ultimately determined that the extension should not be granted due to the unexplained delay and the presence of independent legal advice for the parties charged. The appeal was allowed, and the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Orders