COOPER & OXLEY BUILDERS PTY LTD -v- STEENSMA [2016] WASC 386 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 386 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:1157/2016 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 18/01/17 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Costs awarded | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | COOPER & OXLEY BUILDERS PTY LTD AUKE STEENSMA AM LAND PTY LTD STEVE LIEBLICH |
Catchwords: | Costs Judicial review Certiorari Notice of intention to abide Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56 r 4, O 56 r 7(1) |
Case References: | City of Subiaco v Minister for Planning & Heritage (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970051, 19 February 1997) Cooper & Oxley Builders Pty Ltd v Steensma [2016] WASC 386 Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green [2015] WASC 148 Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v Jones [2015] WASC 136 R v Hastings Licensing Justices, Ex-parte John Lovibond & Sons Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 735 Re Guests; Ex Parte Plutonic Operations Ltd [2001] WASC 158 Re Nicholls SM; Ex Parte Plutonic Operations Ltd [2002] WASCA 232 (S) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Applicant
AND
AUKE STEENSMA
Respondent
AM LAND PTY LTD
Other Party
- Applicant
AND
STEVE LIEBLICH
Respondent
AM LAND PTY LTD
Other Party
Catchwords:
Costs - Judicial review - Certiorari - Notice of intention to abide - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56 r 4, O 56 r 7(1)
Result:
Costs awarded
Category: B
Representation:
CIV 1157 of 2016
Counsel:
Applicant : No appearance
Respondent : No appearance
Other Party : No appearance
Solicitors:
Applicant : Mills Oakley Lawyers
Respondent : No appearance
Other Party : No appearance
CIV 1459 of 2016
Counsel:
Applicant : No appearance
Respondent : No appearance
Other Party : No appearance
Solicitors:
Applicant : Mills Oakley Lawyers
Respondent : No appearance
Other Party : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
City of Subiaco v Minister for Planning & Heritage (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970051, 19 February 1997)
Cooper & Oxley Builders Pty Ltd v Steensma [2016] WASC 386
Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green [2015] WASC 148
Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v Jones [2015] WASC 136
R v Hastings Licensing Justices, Ex-parte John Lovibond & Sons Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 735
Re Guests; Ex Parte Plutonic Operations Ltd [2001] WASC 158
Re Nicholls SM; Ex Parte Plutonic Operations Ltd [2002] WASCA 232 (S)
- LE MIERE J:
Background
1 These two matters were applications for writs of certiorari to issue in relation to determinations…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooper and Oxley Builders Pty Ltd v Steensma and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2016] WASC 386 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Cooper and Oxley Builders Pty Ltd versus Steensma, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with examining the legal issues surrounding the awarding of costs in a judicial review context. The appellant, Cooper and Oxley Builders Pty Ltd, sought to overturn a decision made by the respondent, Steensma, concerning the imposition of costs in a case where the applicant had served a notice of intention to abide. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of legal principles governing the awarding of costs in such circumstances.
The primary legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the interpretation of the relevant legislation and case law concerning the awarding of costs in judicial review proceedings. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the respondent's decision to award costs was justified and whether the notice of intention to abide served by the appellant warranted a different outcome in terms of costs. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had properly exercised their discretion in awarding costs.
The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a detailed examination of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case. The court found that the respondent had not properly exercised their discretion in awarding costs, as the notice of intention to abide served by the appellant should have been taken into account. The court held that the respondent's decision to award costs was erroneous, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. Consequently, the Federal Court of Australia awarded costs to the appellant, Cooper and Oxley Builders Pty Ltd.
The primary legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the interpretation of the relevant legislation and case law concerning the awarding of costs in judicial review proceedings. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the respondent's decision to award costs was justified and whether the notice of intention to abide served by the appellant warranted a different outcome in terms of costs. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had properly exercised their discretion in awarding costs.
The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a detailed examination of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case. The court found that the respondent had not properly exercised their discretion in awarding costs, as the notice of intention to abide served by the appellant should have been taken into account. The court held that the respondent's decision to award costs was erroneous, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. Consequently, the Federal Court of Australia awarded costs to the appellant, Cooper and Oxley Builders Pty Ltd.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs awarded
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.