Frigger v Lean

Case [2012] WASCA 66

FRIGGER -v- LEAN [2012] WASCA 66



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASCA 66
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:27/20119 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
ALLANSON J		27/03/12
20Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:ANGELA FRIGGER
HARTMUT FRIGGER
GRAEME TREVOR LEAN

Catchwords:
Practice and procedure
Appeal against costs orders
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 87
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280

Case References:
Bateman v Cookeson [1998] WASC 348
Cifuentes v Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 316 (S)
Donald Campbell & Co v Pollak [1927] AC 732
EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S)
Heartlink Ltd v Jones as Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Keet v Ward [2011] WASCA 139
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lighting by Design (Aust) Pty Ltd v Cannington Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 23 (S)
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 183; (2009) 261 ALR 179
Rodwell v Hutchinson [2010] WASCA 197
Verdell Pty Ltd v F & G Nominees Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 58 (S2)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : FRIGGER -v- LEAN [2012] WASCA 66 CORAM : NEWNES JA
    MURPHY JA
    ALLANSON J
HEARD : 9 DECEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 27 of 2011 BETWEEN : ANGELA FRIGGER
    HARTMUT FRIGGER
    Appellants

    AND

    GRAEME TREVOR LEAN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : KENNETH MARTIN J

Citation : FRIGGER v CAMPBELL-SMITH

File No : CIV 1727 of 2009


Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against costs orders - Turns on own facts


(Page 2)



Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 87


Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellants : Mr D W Thompson
    Respondent : Ms K F Banks-Smith

Solicitors:

    Appellants : David Thompson
    Respondent : DLA Piper Australia



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

Bateman v Cookeson [1998] WASC 348
Cifuentes v Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 316 (S)
Donald Campbell & Co v Pollak [1927] AC 732
EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S)
Heartlink Ltd v Jones as Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Keet v Ward [2011] WASCA 139
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lighting by Design (Aust) Pty Ltd v Cannington Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 23 (S)
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Professional Services of Australia…

Continue reading Frigger v Lean

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66
Case
[2012] WASCA 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Frigger v Lean involved the appellant, Mr Frigger, who sought to appeal against an order that had been made by the trial judge in relation to costs. The respondent, Mr Lean, opposed the appeal. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The central legal issue that the Court of Appeal was required to determine was whether the appeal against the costs order should be allowed. The appellant contended that the trial judge had erred in making the costs order, and that the order was not in accordance with the usual principles governing costs in such cases. The respondent argued that the appeal should be dismissed because it was an abuse of process and had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was not allowed because it turned on its own facts and was an abuse of process. The Court noted that the principles governing costs orders were well established, and that the trial judge had carefully considered the matter and made a reasoned decision. The Court further held that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, and that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed. The Court therefore dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.