| JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : FEAVER -v- CAMM & ASSOCIATES [2010] WADC 59 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT HEARD : 22 & 27 APRIL 2010 DELIVERED : 29 APRIL 2010 FILE NO/S : LPA 3 of 2007 BETWEEN : ANTHEA DAPHNE FEAVER Applicant
AND
CAMM & ASSOCIATES
Respondent
Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Taxation of costs - Application for late amendment - Adequacy of proposed amendment - Turns on own facts Legislation: Legal Practice Act 2003 Result: Application refused
(Page 2)
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : Mr S V Forbes
Respondent : Mr D J Garnsworthy
Solicitors:
Applicant : Stewart Forbes
Respondent : Camm & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: In this matter the Supreme Court of Western Australia remitted a solicitor client bill filed by the practitioner to this Court for taxation. The basis of the remission was the fact that the bill related to proceedings which were conducted within the District Court of Western Australia.
2 The matter first came before me on 11 February 2010 and at that stage I gave the practitioner leave to file an amended bill subject to the payment of any additional fees that bill might attract. That was done and the matter ultimately came before me for taxation on two occasions, the last of which was 27 April 2010. 3 In this case the practitioner had entered an agreement with the defendant to the District Court action settling the amount of party/party costs. As a consequence of that step I formed the view that the only items properly taxed were those which comprised the solicitor's claim on a solicitor client basis taking the view that to the extent that the bill comprised a large amount of other items those items were properly comprehended in party/party costs and thus the subject of the agreement achieved by the solicitor with the legal practitioners representing the defendant in the action, and that further amounts should not properly be allowed. 4 The taxation was effectively concluded on 22 April and was adjourned to 27 April to allow the practitioner to object. When the matter came before me on 27 April the solicitor representing the practitioner sought to introduce amendments to the bill. In essence those amendments included claims for some proportion of the fees paid to counsel which it was contended would not have been recoverable party/party. It is to be noted that those items had never been separately identified in any bill filed to that stage. 5 I formed the view that the document which was presented to me which was intended to represent that proportion of counsel fees properly claimable on a solicitor client taxation was incapable of being sensibly interpreted and it was impossible on the basis of the information presented to tax the bill as it was proposed to be amended. I took the view that the amendments sought by the practitioner came too late. They would have effectively required the taxation to have been abandoned, for a much more intensely particularised schedule to have been presented and, quite possibly, for the counsel involved to have given evidence as to the tasks which they undertook. (Page 4)
6 In my view such a process is unacceptable and it is particularly so when after a very lengthy process the taxation was effectively completed. I therefore refused the amendments and allowed the bill in the amount previously calculated to be due. The allocator and a certificate under s 243 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 were therefore signed.
|