Cachia v Hanes

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by Mr Saviour Laurence Cachia against Mr Kenneth Hanes and Mrs Nola Hanes. The dispute concerned the recovery of expenses by Mr Cachia, who appeared as a litigant in person. Mr Cachia sought to appeal a decision that had apparently limited his ability to recover certain costs.

The High Court was required to determine whether special leave to appeal should be granted. A key legal issue identified by the Court was whether a litigant in person is entitled to recover expenses of the kind claimed by Mr Cachia, which included items such as travelling expenses and loss of income. The Court noted that this was a question of "not unimportant" legal significance.

The Court indicated that it had carefully reviewed the materials before it, including Mr Cachia's affidavit and grounds of appeal, as well as the judgment from which the appeal was sought. While Mr Cachia sought to argue the importance of matters such as the engrossment of documents, the Court suggested that these were not typically matters of great importance to the Court. Mr Hanes, appearing in person, argued that the original bill of costs was exorbitant and that Mr Cachia's claim for loss of income was not justified, suggesting that income should only encompass out-of-pocket expenses as per the principle in *Buckland v Watts*. He also highlighted the protracted nature of the litigation. The Chief Justice, Mason CJ, acknowledged that the entitlement of a litigant in person to recover certain expenses was a significant question of law.