Collins v Djunaedi

[2023] SASCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

COLLINS v DJUNAEDI

[2023] SASCA 97

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)

14 September 2023

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - SUMMARY DISPOSAL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT  - GENERALLY

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT - APPEAL, REVIEW OR REFERENCE - PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE - MODES OF APPEAL, REVIEW OR REFERENCE

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM SUPREME COURT - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY

Appeal against orders of Judge Dart sitting as a Master of the Supreme Court and hearing a taxation of costs.

The respondents were the plaintiffs in District Court proceedings commenced in 2015; the applicants were the defendants.  The respondents were successful in their action and obtained summary judgment against the applicants.  The applicants appealed that decision.  They were unsuccessful and were ordered to pay the respondents costs of the appeal.

The respondents applied for a taxation of their costs of appeal by filing a claim for costs under r 195.2 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).  An administrative judgment was entered by a Deputy Registrar.

Judge Dart set aside this judgment and proceeded to make a lump sum assessment of the respondents’ costs in the amount of $31,000.  His Honour subsequently heard submissions on outstanding costs issues, being the costs of the application to set aside the default costs judgement, and the costs of the taxation process itself. 

As to the former, he held that the applicants were entitled to 50 per cent of their costs of setting aside the default costs judgment.  This was on the basis that whilst they were technically successful and costs would ordinarily follow the event; the application had a number of different heads, and the applicants were unsuccessful in relation to a number of grounds.

As to the costs of the taxation, Judge Dart noted the applicant’s lack of cooperation in the process and held that the respondents were entitled to their costs of the taxation on a party/party basis, but with a 20 per cent uplift to reflect the Court’s disapproval of the applicant’s conduct.

The applicants seek to challenge the orders made by Judge Dart on various grounds.

Held (per the Court), refusing leave to appeal and refusing an extension of time:

1.Leave to appeal is required to appeal an order or judgment that “relates to costs” (r 213.1(c)).

2.Appeals against orders made in a taxation of costs should generally be heard by a single judge, rather than by the Court of Appeal.

3.The applicants’ proposed grounds of appeal are lacking in merit, and do not raise any matter of general principle or importance.  Nor would there be any substantial injustice to the applicants were the orders left to stand.

Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA)…