Legal Research
Cases
Cassegrain v CTK Engineering

Cassegrain v CTK Engineering

Case [2008] NSWSC 457 15 May 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Cassegrain v CTK Engineering; Cassegrain v Cassegrain [2008] NSWSC 457

HEARING DATE(S): 02 April 2008; 03 April 2008; written submissions on 9 May 2008.

JUDGMENT DATE :
15 May 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: White J

DECISION: See paras 146 and 147 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: COSTS – assessment – costs assessor – review panel – adequacy of reasons – basis of assessment of all disputed costs must be explained – statement of reasons must be sufficiently precise to give meaningful content to rights of appeal – sufficient to specify how disputed costs of the same kind were treated – failure to provide sufficient reasons. - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – joinder of members of costs review panel as defendants.

LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth)
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Consequential orders

CASES CITED: Thomas Jean Roger Cassegrain v CTK Engineering Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 495; (2005) 54 ACSR 249
Cassegrain v Cassegrain [2006] NSWCA 39; (2006) 56 ACSR 711
Cassegrain v CTK Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 78
Frumar v The Owners of Strata Plan 36957 [2006] NSWCA 278; (2006) 67 NSWLR 321
Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd v Lancken (Supreme Court of NSW, Sperling J, 1 August 1997, unreported)
Attorney-General of New South Wales v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan & Ors [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372
Sasterawan v Morris [2008] NSWCA 70
Turner v Pride [1999] NSWSC 850
Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd [1921] 1 KB 495
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Cachia v Hanes (1993) 179 CLR 403
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184
Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145; (2006) 66 NSWLR 474
Chapman’s Ltd v Yandell [1999] NSWCA 361
Prouse v State Rail Authority of NSW [2003] NSWSC 999
New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2005] NSWCA 351
Lyons v Wende [2007] NSWSC 100

PARTIES: Thomas Jean Roger Cassegrain & Anor
v
CTK Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor;
Claude George Rene Cassegrain
v
Thomas Jean Roger Cassegrain & 3 Ors

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4277/04; 14024/07

COUNSEL: 14024/07
Plaintiff: N J Kidd
1st & 2nd Defendants: R Beech-Jones SC & A Horvath
3rd Defendant: V Musico
4th Defendant: A Lo Surdo

SOLICITORS: 14024/07
Plaintiff: Evangelos Patakas & Associates
1st & 2nd Defendants: Thompson Eslick Solicitors
3rd Defendant: Costs Review Panel
4th Defendant: Norton White Solicitors

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WHITE J

Thursday, 15 May 2008

4277/04 Thomas Jean Roger Cassegrain & Anor v CTK Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor
14024/07 Claude George Rene Cassegrain v Thomas Jean Roger Cassegrain & 3 Ors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal and an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a costs review panel upholding a costs assessment.…

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 Cassegrain v CTK Engineering

Details

AGLC: Cassegrain v CTK Engineering [2008] NSWSC 457
Case: [2008] NSWSC 457
Decision Date: 15 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cassegrain v CTK Engineering, the taxpayer sought to challenge the costs decision of a costs review panel. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the costs assessor for the assessment of certain costs. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the reasons provided by the costs assessor were adequate under the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the basis of the assessment of all disputed costs was sufficiently explained and whether the statement of reasons was precise enough to give meaningful content to the taxpayer's rights of appeal.

The court held that the reasons provided by the costs assessor were inadequate. The reasons did not explain the basis of the assessment of all disputed costs and failed to provide sufficient detail for meaningful judicial review. The court found that a statement of reasons must be sufficiently precise to enable the taxpayer to understand how disputed costs of the same kind were treated. In this case, the reasons were insufficient because they did not provide a detailed explanation of the assessment process for the disputed costs. The court also addressed the issue of whether the members of the costs review panel could be joined as defendants in the proceeding, concluding that they could be properly joined as they were acting in their official capacity when making the costs decision.

As a result of the court's findings, the case was remitted to the costs review panel for reassessment of the disputed costs with adequate reasons. The court did not provide further orders regarding the joinder of the panel members as defendants, as this aspect of the case did not impact the primary issue of the adequacy of reasons for the costs assessment.

Orders