Commissioner of State Revenue v Artistic Pty Ltd
[2008] WASCA 24 (S)
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE -v- ARTISTIC PTY LTD [2008] WASCA 24 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASCA 24 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:32/2006 | 7 DECEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA NEWNES AJA | 7/02/08 | |
| 2/04/08 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE ARTISTIC PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE -v- ARTISTIC PTY LTD [2008] WASCA 24 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
NEWNES AJA
DECISION : 2 APRIL 2008 FILE NO/S : CACV 32 of 2006 BETWEEN : COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
- Appellant
AND
ARTISTIC PTY LTD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : JUDGE J CHANEY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
Citation : ARTISTIC PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2006] WASAT 39
File No : CC 153 of 2005
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms C A Ide
Respondent : Mr T D Czislowski & Mr D S Romano
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent : Wilson & Atkinson
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MARTIN CJ: On 8 February 2008, the court dismissed the appeal brought by the Commissioner of State Revenue and published its reasons for that decision. Directions were made for the exchange of written submissions in relation to the costs of the appeal. Those submissions have now been considered.
2 The respondent seeks an order that the appellant pay its costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. The appellant accepts that it should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, but opposes the order that the costs be taxed on an indemnity basis.
3 Because of the breadth of the discretion given to the Court in respect of costs, the circumstances in which the Court might exercise that discretion by ordering that costs be taxed on an indemnity basis are not closed. However, generally speaking, such an order will not be made unless the conduct of the party against whom it is directed justifies denunciation, or disapproval. That may be for a number of reasons, including inappropriate conduct, improper motive, collateral purpose, or some wilful disregard of the known facts or clearly established law.
4 In its submissions, the respondent makes a variety of assertions concerning the conduct of the appellant which are said to justify denunciation or disapproval. They include a reference to the overlap between the grounds of appeal, the length of the written submissions, and what the respondent asserts to be a case which was 'demonstrably absent of merit'. However, in my opinion, there is nothing unusual or exceptional about the grounds of appeal, or the arguments advanced in support of those grounds, or the written submissions which were filed and served. Nor do I consider that the case advanced by the appellant was so weak as to justify denunciation or disapproval.
5 The respondent also asserts that the appellant was motivated by an ulterior purpose. I can see no basis whatever for that assertion.
6 For these reasons, in my opinion, this is not a case in which it would be appropriate to order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis. Rather, in my opinion, the appropriate order is that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed.
7 BUSS JA: I agree with Martin CJ.
8 NEWNES AJA: I agree with Martin CJ.
0
2
0