CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD -v- ELMAN [2014] WASC 233 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 233 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2713/2013	Heard:	11 SEPTEMBER 2014
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	11/09/14
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Special costs orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD RICHARD SAMUEL ELMAN NOBLE GROUP LTD PAWAY LTD CRAWLEY RESOURCES LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Special costs orders Whether ceiling in Item 10 of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012 should be raised Whether the limit for the rate of senior counsel should be raised
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Case References:	Australian Insurance Brokers Ltd v Hudig Langeveldt Pty Ltd [1988] WAR 44 Cockburn Cement Ltd v The Minister for the Environment (WA) [2011] WASC 260 (S) Crawley Investments Pty Ltd v Elman [2014] WASC 233 EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S) Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd [2011] WASC 268 (S2) Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95 Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 Mercer v Western Australian Planning Commission [2008] WASC 124 (S) Red Hill Iron Pty Ltd v API Management Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 323 (S) Wainwright v Barrick Gold of Australia Ltd [2014] WASCA 15 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD -v- ELMAN [2014] WASC 233 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 11 SEPTEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 11 SEPTEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2713 of 2013 BETWEEN : CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD SAMUEL ELMAN

First Defendant

NOBLE GROUP LTD

Second Defendant

PAWAY LTD

Third Defendant

CRAWLEY RESOURCES LTD

Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Special costs orders - Whether ceiling in Item 10 of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012 should be raised - Whether the limit for the rate of senior counsel should be raised

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012 (WA)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Special costs orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S Lemonis

First Defendant : Ms M L Coulson & Mr D Benson

Second Defendant : No appearance

Third Defendant : No appearance

Fourth Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Lemonis & Tantiprasut Lawyers

First Defendant : Clayton Utz

Second Defendant : No appearance

Third Defendant : No appearance

Fourth Defendant : No appearance

Cases referred to in judgment:

Australian Insurance Brokers Ltd v Hudig Langeveldt Pty Ltd [1988] WAR 44
Cockburn Cement Ltd v The Minister for the Environment (WA) [2011] WASC 260 (S)
Crawley Investments Pty Ltd v Elman [2014] WASC 233
EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crawley Investments Pty Ltd v Elman 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASC 233 (S)
Decision Date: 11 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Crawley Investments Pty Ltd versus Elman came before the court. Crawley Investments, the plaintiff, sought a special costs order against Elman, the defendant. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012, specifically concerning the ceiling in Item 10 and the limit for the rate of senior counsel. The plaintiff argued that the costs awarded should exceed the prescribed limits, while the defendant maintained that the statutory ceilings should not be exceeded. The court was tasked with determining whether the ceiling in Item 10 should be raised and whether the limit for the rate of senior counsel should be adjusted.

The court considered the statutory framework governing legal costs and the precedents established in similar cases. It was necessary to balance the statutory limits with the principles of fairness and justice in awarding costs. The court had to examine whether the circumstances of this case warranted a departure from the prescribed limits. In reaching its decision, the court considered the economic and social context, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality of the costs sought. The court also took into account the nature of the dispute and the complexity of the issues involved.

The court concluded that the circumstances of the case justified a special costs order that exceeded the statutory limits. The economic and social context, along with the conduct of the parties, supported the imposition of higher costs. The court found that the prescribed ceilings and limits did not adequately reflect the true costs incurred in this case. Consequently, the court granted a special costs order that allowed the plaintiff to recover costs that were higher than the statutory maximums. This decision recognised the exceptional nature of the dispute and the need for a fair and just outcome.

The final orders included a special costs order that permitted Crawley Investments to recover costs exceeding the statutory limits. The court's decision recognised the need to balance statutory constraints with the principles of fairness and justice in exceptional cases. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2012 in cases where the prescribed limits were deemed insufficient.

Orders

Orders of the court

Special costs orders made

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.