Edwards MAC Scovell v Traianou - [2020] WASC 280

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   EDWARDS MAC SCOVELL -v- TRAIANOU [2020] WASC 280
CORAM:   REGISTRAR WHITBY
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   30 JULY 2020
FILE NO/S:   LPA 36 of 2019
BETWEEN:   EDWARDS MAC SCOVELL
Applicant
AND
ALLAN TRAIANOU
Respondent

Catchwords:

Review of taxation - Order 66 r 53, r54 RSC - Error in Principle - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
Legal Profession (District and Supreme Courts) (Contentious Business) Scale 2018
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Respondent's objections dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Edwards Mac Scovell Legal
Respondent	:	In Person

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

Lobban v Lawson Legal [2014] WASC 243
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155
Soia v Bennett [2014] WASCA 204

REGISTRAR WHITBY:

Background

The applicant is a law firm. The respondent retained the applicant to act on behalf of him and his daughter, Ms Lisa Traianou, in relation to an offer and acceptance entered into by Ms Traianou to purchase 4 Shallow Street Spearwood, Western Australia (property) from Ladybug Holdings Pty Ltd (Ladybug) (Contract).
The Contract was due to settle in November 2017.
Ladybug executed the Contract by its sole director, Anne Best. Ms Best was, at all relevant times, engaged in proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia with her former husband in relation to their separation. Ms Best's former husband asserted that Ms Best had been restrained by the Family Court from dealing with the property and therefore, the Contract could not be enforced.
The applicant relies upon the affidavit of Bonnie Adele Scovell sworn on 31 October 2020 (Scovell Affidavit). The Scovell Affidavit sets out the background to the retainer and the nature of the work completed by the applicant pursuant to the retainer.
The applicant rendered invoices to the respondent for work performed for the period 20 April 2018 to 16 July 2018. The rates charged by the applicant for each practitioner did not exceed the amounts provided for in the Legal Profession (District and Supreme Courts) (Contentious Business) Scale 2018 (the Scale).
On 21 August 2019, the applicant filed an application for assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (LPA).
On 12 March 2020, the applicant filed an Amended Bill of Costs for Assessment (Bill of Costs) in the total amount of $8,500.
On 10 June 2020, I assessed the Bill of Costs and allowed the global amount of $6,500. At the conclusion of the assessment I made orders that, inter alia, the applicant and the respondent have until 4.00 pm on 17 June 2020 to file and serve any objections in relation to the assessment of the Bill of Costs (such objections to identify the error/s in principle of the assessment). On 17 June 2020, I granted the respondent an extension of time to file any objections to the assessment of the Bill of Costs to 18 June 2020.
On 18…

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.

Continue reading Edwards MAC Scovell v Traianou

Details

AGLC: Edwards MAC Scovell v Traianou [2020] WASC 280
Case: [2020] WASC 280
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edwards MAC Scovell v Traianou involves a dispute between the parties over the taxation of a legal matter. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether there had been an error in principle in the taxation of the matter, which would necessitate a review of the taxation. This issue turned on the unique facts of the case, and the court had to determine whether the error in principle was such that it warranted a review of the taxation.

The court considered the relevant rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Order 66 rules 53 and 54, which provide for the review of taxation. The court noted that an error in principle could warrant a review of taxation if it was material to the case and the error was such that it would have affected the outcome of the case. In this case, the court found that there had been an error in principle, but it was not material to the case, and therefore, a review of the taxation was not warranted.

The court emphasised that the error in principle had to be significant enough to affect the outcome of the case for a review of taxation to be granted. The court found that the error in principle in this case did not meet this threshold and, therefore, the application for a review of taxation was dismissed. The court also noted that the unique facts of the case played a significant role in its decision, as the error in principle would have had a different impact on the outcome of the case if the facts were different.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for a review of taxation, finding that the error in principle was not material to the case. The court emphasised that the error in principle had to be significant enough to affect the outcome of the case for a review of taxation to be granted. The unique facts of the case played a crucial role in the court's decision, and the court found that the error in principle in this case did not warrant a review of taxation.

Orders