Legal Research
Cases
Cachia v Hanes

Cachia v Hanes

Case [1993] HCATrans 153 16 June 1993

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

.

• ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S59 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
SAVIOUR LAURENCE CACHIA

Appellant

and
KENNETH HANES and NOLA HANES

Respondent

MASON CJ

BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

Cachia(2)

16/6/93

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 16 JUNE 1993, AT 10.24 AM

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friends, MR K.P. SMARK and
MR R.C. TITTERTON, for the appellant. (instructed
by Vandenberg Reid)

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friends, MR S.J. McMILLAN, for the
respondent. (instructed by Macphillamy Cummins &
Gibson)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON:

Your Honours should have copies of a document

misleadingly entitled "Outline of Submissions".
May I say two things about the document: the first
is we have endeavoured to set out rather more fully
than otherwise would be the case the submissions
which we wish to make in that document for two

reasons. The first is that it seemed necessary in
the first place to set out, as appears in the first
few pages, the circumstances leading to the issues
in the case; and the second thing is that in
examining the case it seemed that unless one were
to put some of it in writing it might take rather
longer than the time estimated. That is the first
thing I would like to say.
The second thing, Your Honours, is this:

because of the unusual nature of the case, and by
that I mean in a sense that the requirement for
counsel has been one imposed by the Court upon the
client, we have taken the liberty of enclosing with
our outline of submissions two documents which the
client would himself wish to place before the Court

as his submissions in the matter. May I say in
that regard, Your Honours, two things: the first
is that much of the subject-matter of them is
covered, in fact, by the submissions which we would
be making; the second of them is that whilst they
appear lengthy that is really because substantial

parts of cases have been extracted in full.
So, Your Honours, might I then proceed to our

submissions. As is apparent from paragraphs 1 to
5 - - -

MASON CJ:	Mr Jackson, if you would just give us the opportunity of reading the document.
MR JACKSON:	I am sorry, Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON:

Your Honours, as is apparent from paragraphs 1

to 5 of the outline of submissions, the underlying
facts may be stated very shortly. They are these:

Cachia(2)

16/6/93

the appellant defended himself successfully in proceedings brought against him in the Supreme

Court of New South Wales. The proceedings were in

the equity division. They were for an order that
he restore the support…

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 Cachia v Hanes

Details

AGLC: Cachia v Hanes [1993] HCATrans 153
Case: [1993] HCATrans 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Cachia, appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the taxation of his costs. Mr. Cachia had successfully defended proceedings brought against him in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, which sought an order to restore the support of certain land. Following his success, he was awarded costs, but objections were raised to various items on his bill of costs. These objections were considered by the taxing officer, a Master, and the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned the appellant's entitlement to recover costs in respect of specific items on his bill. The Court was not concerned with the monetary value of these items, but rather with the fundamental question of whether the appellant was entitled to recover them at all. The specific items in dispute, as identified by the appellant, included a range of disbursements and professional fees, such as travelling expenses.

The High Court's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not fully detailed in the provided transcript, which appears to be the opening submissions of counsel. However, it is evident that the Court was required to determine the recoverability of costs in light of the objections raised and the decisions made by the lower courts. The appellant's submissions focused on establishing his entitlement to these disputed costs.

Orders