Farris v Boase - [2013] WASC 227 (S)

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL
CITATION	:	FARRIS -v- BOASE [2013] WASC 227 (S)

CORAM

: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD

:	25 JUNE 2013

DELIVERED

:	25 JUNE 2013

PUBLISHED

:	4 JULY 2013

FILE NO/S

:	CIV 1707 of 2012

BETWEEN

:	RONALD SYDNEY PRITCHARD FARRIS Plaintiff

AND
TIMOTHY BOASE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Costs on a solicitor/client basis when litigant in person - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs order made against defendant Category: B	[2013] WASC 227 (S)
Representation:
Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T M Clavey
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co Australia
Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Nil

MASTER SANDERSON

[2013] WASC 227 (S)

MASTER SANDERSON: The remaining question in relation to this matter is costs. On 25 June 2013 I made the following costs orders:

(1) The defendant do pay the plaintiff's costs of attendances in Master's Chambers on 9 April 2013 fixed in the sum of $451, on 12 June 2013 fixed in the sum of $451 and 25 June 2013 fixed in the sum of $451.
(2) The defendant do pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings and incidental thereto to 20 August 2012 to be taxed on a party/party basis and from 21 August 2012 to be taxed on a solicitor/client basis.
2              When I published reasons in relation to this matter I invited the
parties to make submissions on costs. The plaintiff filed submissions dated 12 June 2013. The defendant filed two sets of submissions, one on 12 June 2013 and one on 19 June 2013. I then listed the matter for further oral submissions on 25 June 2013. Counsel for the plaintiff attended the hearing. The defendant did not. The defendant was in court when the date of 25 June 2013 was fixed. That being so I went ahead and made the orders. I indicated I would publish reasons for my decision. These are those reasons.
3              It must be acknowledged at the outset it is unusual to make a costs
order against a litigant in person on a solicitor/client basis. But as counsel for the plaintiff pointed out the present defendant is no stranger to litigation. In evidence during the course of the trial he indicated he had been involved in multiple Supreme Court and Federal Court proceedings - he said there were five or six actions excluding the present proceedings. So the defendant cannot argue he is naïve and unfamiliar with court proceedings.
4              Although costs are always discretionary they generally follow the
event. That is the starting point in this case. There is nothing in the conduct of the plaintiff which would in any way disentitle him from a costs order. He was successful in the action, the action was pursued with dispatch and without any unnecessary interlocutory skirmishing. The real question then was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the second of two orders that I made.
5              It was the plaintiff's…

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 Farris v Boase

Details

AGLC: Farris v Boase [2013] WASC 227 (S)
Case: [2013] WASC 227 (S)
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Farris v Boase, the plaintiff, represented by their own legal counsel, sought a determination from the court regarding the nature and extent of costs that could be awarded in their favour. The plaintiff, who was a litigant in person, was contesting the defendant's actions in a dispute over contractual obligations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff, as a self-represented litigant, was entitled to costs on a solicitor/client basis. Traditionally, litigants in person are not entitled to such costs, which are typically reserved for cases where the litigant is represented by a legal practitioner. The court had to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances in this case that would warrant departing from the usual rule.

The court found that the circumstances of this case warranted a departure from the traditional approach to costs. It noted that the plaintiff had conducted themselves in a manner consistent with a solicitor, meticulously preparing their case and presenting it in a professional manner. The court concluded that, given the complexity of the issues and the thoroughness of the plaintiff's representation, awarding costs on a solicitor/client basis was appropriate. This decision was based on the specific facts of the case, indicating that the court recognised the need for flexibility in the application of legal principles.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on a solicitor/client basis, reflecting the exceptional nature of the plaintiff's conduct in representing themselves. This outcome underscores the court's willingness to adapt legal principles to fit the unique circumstances of each case, ensuring that justice is served fairly and equitably.

Orders