CORICA -v- THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING [2016] WASC 356 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 356 (S)
Case No:	SJA:1017/2015	Heard:	7 NOVEMBER 2016
Coram:	TOTTLE J	Delivered:	30/01/17
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	The appellants pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARILYN KAYE CORICA SALVATORE CORICA THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Where appellants' application was wholly unsuccessful Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CORICA -v- THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING [2016] WASC 356 (S) CORAM : TOTTLE J HEARD : 7 NOVEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 30 JANUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : SJA 1017 of 2015 BETWEEN : MARILYN KAYE CORICA

SALVATORE CORICA

Appellants

AND

THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO

File No : MI 5376 of 2013, MI 5377 of 2013, MI 5378 of 2013, MI 5379 of 2013, MI 5380 of 2013, MI 5381 of 2013, MI 11570 of 2013, MI 11571 of 2013, MI 224 of 2014, MI 225 of 2014, MI 226 of 2014, MI 227 of 2015

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Where appellants' application was wholly unsuccessful - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

The appellants pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : In person

Respondent : Mr A Wadham

Solicitors:

Appellants : In person

Respondent : McLeods Barristers & Solicitors

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

1 TOTTLE J: On 7 November 2016 I dismissed the appellants' application for leave to appeal against convictions that had been entered against them in the Magistrates Court.

2 The respondent applied for an order that the appellants pay its costs of the application for leave to appeal. The appellants opposed this order and I gave them leave to file and serve written submissions to enable them to develop their argument that they should not be liable for the respondent's costs, and I gave the respondent leave to file responsive submissions. I said that upon receipt of those submissions I would determine the issue of costs 'on the papers'.

3 On 21 November 2016 the appellants filed submissions extending over some 16 pages. The submissions challenged the standing of the respondents to bring the proceedings and repeated a number of arguments that had been advanced by the appellants in their application for leave to appeal. The submissions concluded with a list of the 'orders sought' by the appellants. These included orders that:

the 'Company's [sic] known as be deregistered immediately:

1 Attorney General ABN 70 598 519 443

2 Supreme Court of Western Australia ABN 70 598 519 443

4 The deregistration of a number of other entities was sought.

5 Under the heading 'Costs' the appellants sought payment of the sum of $2 million to each of them as compensation for hardship suffered by them.

6 The submissions did not contain a cogent reasoned argument as to why the appellants should not pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal.

7 The appellants' application was wholly unsuccessful and there is no reason why they should not pay the respondents' costs. Accordingly, I order that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal, such costs to be taxed.

In the case of Corica v The Shire of Mundaring, the appellants, Mr and Mrs Corica, contested a decision made by the respondent, the Shire of Mundaring, regarding a zoning dispute on their property. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate legal costs associated with the unsuccessful appeal. The appellants sought a reduction in the costs awarded to the respondent, arguing that their application had been unsuccessful but that the case's unique circumstances warranted a reconsideration of the costs. The court was required to determine whether the appellants' application, being wholly unsuccessful, should still result in the imposition of costs and, if so, whether those costs should be reduced.

The court examined the principles governing costs in unsuccessful applications, particularly when the appeal's outcome hinged on its own facts. It considered the appellants' argument that the case's unique nature might justify a deviation from the usual costs order. However, the court found that the principles established in previous case law applied, and the appellants' application was indeed wholly unsuccessful. Consequently, the court held that the standard costs order should apply, and there were no grounds to reduce the costs awarded to the respondent.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appellants' application for a costs reduction. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs, with the amount to be determined through taxation if the parties could not agree on it. The court's decision was based on the established legal principles regarding costs in unsuccessful appeals, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the full costs as originally awarded.

Corica v The Shire of Mundaring

CORICA -v- THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING [2016] WASC 356 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established