Chamberlain v Boodle & King [1982] 1 WLR 1443
Cruickshank v Producers Markets Co‑operative Ltd [1960] WAR 184
D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas 10 WAR 191
Gonjoletto v Myer Properties WA, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 5661; 31 March 1993
Schweppes' Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178
Singleton v Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 103

Case(s) also cited:

Gallagher v CSR, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940165; 31 March 1994
Glenn v Brambles Australia Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No D980041; 16 February 1998
Re Malleson Stewart Stawell v Nankivell (1931) VLR 127
Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470

COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS:

Introduction

Before me for determination is an application by the defendant pursuant to O66 r55 of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 ("the Rules") for an order that the taxation of an item of the plaintiff's bill of costs for taxation by a Deputy Registrar of this Court be reviewed.
By letter dated 16 May 1996 the plaintiff's solicitors gave notice to the defendant's insurer that they were appointed to act on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of a claim arising out of a motor vehicle collision on 16 March 1996. On 24 June 1997 the plaintiff filed a writ herein seeking damages against the defendant arising from personal injuries allegedly sustained by her from the accident as a consequence of the defendant's negligent driving of a motor vehicle. A memorandum of appearance was filed on behalf of the defendant on 10 July 1997. There was some delay in the plaintiff filing and serving her statement of claim. A defence was filed on behalf of the defendant on 28 August 1997. The defendant admitted in para 2 of his defence that the motor vehicle accident was caused solely as a result of his negligence. The plaintiff's action was settled at a pre‑trial conference on 27 May 1998 when the parties consented to judgment being entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $12,500 and costs of the action to be taxed.
The plaintiff's bill of costs for taxation was filed on 16 June 1998 and taxed on 24 July 1998. The plaintiff's bill was allowed in the sum of $8,506.68 of which the sum of $5,975 was for profit costs. The balance was made up by various disbursements including filing fees, photocopying expenses and medical report fees. A…

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 Bray v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Bray v Ryan [1999] WADC 66
Case: [1999] WADC 66
Decision Date: 13 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bray v Ryan, the plaintiff, Bray, sought a review of the taxation of costs in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The matter arose from a dispute concerning the appropriate scale to be used for taxing the costs of legal proceedings. Specifically, Bray argued that the 1997 scale should be applied rather than the more recent scale introduced in 2012. The defendant, Ryan, contested this, asserting that the newer scale was applicable and more appropriate for the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the 1997 scale or the 2012 scale should be used to tax the costs of the litigation. The court had to consider the appropriate application of the rules governing costs and whether any changes in those rules should retrospectively affect the current proceedings. The matter hinged on the interpretation of the relevant rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the applicability of any legislative changes to the taxing of costs.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that the 1997 scale was applicable to the taxation of costs in this case. The court reasoned that the nature of the proceedings and the point at which the costs were incurred were critical factors. The court held that because the costs were incurred during a period when the 1997 scale was in effect, it was appropriate to apply that scale for the purpose of taxing the costs. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the rules in effect at the time the costs were incurred.

The final orders of the court directed that the costs of the proceedings be taxed according to the 1997 scale, thus resolving the dispute in favour of the plaintiff, Bray.

Orders