Frigger v Mervyn Jonathan Kitay as liquidator of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd [No 2]

The plaintiff, Mrs Frigger, filed an application seeking an extension of time to object to the defendant's bill of costs and subsequently applied for a permanent stay of the taxation of the defendant's bill of costs. The defendant, Mr Mervyn Kitay, as liquidator of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd, opposed both applications. The issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's asserted errors of principle fell within the scope of Order 66 Rule 55 of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA) and, if not, whether any errors of principle were otherwise demonstrated. The court found that the plaintiff's objections to the bill of costs did not constitute errors of principle warranting an extension of time for review of the taxation of the bill of costs. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff's application for a permanent stay was an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been determined and was therefore dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the plaintiff's objections to the bill of costs did not fall within the scope of Order 66 Rule 55 of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA). The court found that the plaintiff's arguments were based on the indemnity principle, which was not a ground for extending the time for objecting to the taxation of the bill of costs. The court also held that the plaintiff's application for a permanent stay was an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been determined. The plaintiff had failed to provide any new evidence or arguments to support her application for a permanent stay, and the court found that the application was an abuse of process. The court therefore dismissed both applications.

In conclusion, the court refused the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to object to the defendant's bill of costs and dismissed the plaintiff's application for a permanent stay of the taxation of the bill of costs. The court held that the plaintiff's objections to the bill of costs did not constitute errors of principle warranting an extension of time for review of the taxation of the bill of costs, and that the plaintiff's application for a permanent stay was an abuse of process. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the applications.