Frigger v Nigam

[2008] WADC 3

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   FRIGGER -v- NIGAM [2008] WADC 3

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD                   :14 AUGUST 2007

DELIVERED          :   10 JANUARY 2008

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1305 of 2005

BETWEEN:   ANGELA FRIGGER

Plaintiff

AND

SHARAD CHANDRA NIGAM
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Review of taxation - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objections disallowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     P Griffin/In Person

Defendant:     Mr S V Forbes

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Not applicable

Defendant:     Stewart Forbes

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

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:  The defendant's bill of costs pursuant to orders made on 14 August 2007 also came before me for taxation and there has been an objection to the amount allowed on that bill again brought in by the plaintiff.  The first complaint is as to Items 1 – 3 which were various claims for photocopying which I allowed.  It is complained that these amounts were allowed whereas those claimed by the plaintiff were disallowed.  The defendant's claim was allowed because the photocopying was of documents which were filed and for which an allowance could, and in my view, should have been made.  My reasons for disallowing the plaintiff's claim have been dealt with in a decision on that objection.

2. The next item of complaint relates to item 4 proceedings in chambers for which a claim of $3,000 was made and which was allowed at $2,500.  Putting aside the assertion of "my obvious bias" a schedule of the time said to have been spent preparing for and attending that attendance was before me, itemising the various tasks and times expended by the defendant's solicitors in regard to the matter.

3. Since I was the Registrar who dealt with the application I had a fair understanding of the task involved and formed the view that the claim although a little high required only a small reduction to reflect the reasonable time taken to perform the work.  As to the balance of the complaints about comparisons with various other bills and various other occasions I find them unhelpful and they are not matters which can be fruitfully pursued.

4. The next item was the extraction of an order for which I allowed $190; that being a standard fee.  It is alleged that the order was extracted by the Principal Registrar.  That submission is incorrect.  It was signed by the Principal Registrar and extracted by the defendant's solicitors.

5. The next objection is as to Item 6 drawing bill of costs copies and service for which $544.50 was sought and $344 allowed.  That figure was calculated on the basis of the document before me, and an appreciation of the fact that at least two visits to the court registry are required in order to achieve a taxation date, the document then needs to be served on the plaintiff.  Some consideration was given to the fact that a schedule in regard to the major item claimed was also prepared and provided.  In the circumstances I considered that somewhat less than one hour of a senior practitioner's time at the maximum rate would be absorbed in the task and accordingly made the allowance.

6. After considering these objections I consider that no adjustment should be made to the amount allowed on the taxation.

7. The time for appeal against this decision shall be extended to 29 February 2008.