Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chapple - [2023] WASCA 83

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   DULUXGROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD -v- CHAPPLE [2023] WASCA 83
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
BEECH JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   16 MAY 2023
DELIVERED          :   25 MAY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CACV 82 of 2022
BETWEEN:   DULUXGROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
STEPHEN CHAPPLE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   COMMISSIONER COLLINS
Citation: CHAPPLE -v- DULUXGROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2022] WADC 73
File Number            :   APP 89 of 2021

Catchwords:

Appeal - Magistrates Court - Minor cases procedure - Minor case dismissed - Costs order made in favour of successful party in respect of expert costs - Appeal against costs order allowed by District Court - Appeal against decision of District Court - Whether magistrate's reasons for costs were legally adequate

Legislation:

Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (WA), r 4(a), r 4(e), r 23
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (WA), r 3.1
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 25, s 26, s 27, s 28, s 32(3)(b), s 42, s 43
Magistrates Court Civil Proceedings) Rules 2005 (WA), r 72
Magistrates Court (Minor Cases Procedure) Rules 2005 (WA), r 5

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	T Langdon
Respondent	:	R Graham

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Perth)
Respondent	:	Vogt Graham Lawyers

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

Browne v Browne [2019] WASCA 1
Centex Australasia Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2017] WASCA 79
Chapple v DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] WADC 73
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection and Family Support v IGR [2019] WASCA 20; (2019) 54 WAR 222
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 26; (2018) 266 CLR 1
Frichot v Zalmstra (Unreported, FCSCWA, Library No 981291, 13 May 1998)
Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1999) 21 WAR 226
Greenslade v Hiew [2022] WASCA 47
L v P [2022] WASCA 40
Minister for Immigration v AAM17 [2021] HCA 6; (2021) 272 CLR 329
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58
Pave Wealth Services Pty Ltd v Jones [2021] WASCA 7
Player v Avery [2022] WASCA 147
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Jones [2008] WASCA 121
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Tran v Claydon [2003] WASCA 318
Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; (2011) 243 CLR 181
Wilson v Arwon Finance Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 137

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal against a decision[1] in the District Court (Commissioner Collins) allowing an appeal against a costs order for $7,508 made in a minor claim in the Magistrates Court at Fremantle.
[1] Chapple v DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] WADC 73 (primary reasons).
The appellant, DuluxGroup (Australia)…

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 Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chapple 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: [2023] WASCA 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is an appeal against a decision in the District Court allowing an appeal against a costs order made in a minor claim in the Magistrates Court. The appellant, DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd, seeks to reinstate the costs order made in the Magistrates Court. The appeal has been generated solely by the costs orders made in the parties' litigation in the Magistrates Court and the District Court. The appeal court may strike out the appeal if the likely costs of the appeal to the parties would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim in, or the nature of, the case which is the subject of the appeal. The court found that the magistrate provided legally adequate reasons for the making of the costs order, and the Commissioner was in error in concluding to the contrary. The appeal should be allowed. The orders made in the District Court must be set aside. The appeal against the orders of the Magistrates Court is dismissed.

Orders