FRIGGER -v- NIGAM [2007] WADC 138

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 138
Case No:	CIV:1305/2005	Heard:	9 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:	FENBURY DCJ	Delivered:	14/08/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order to be amended
PDF Version

Parties:	ANGELA FRIGGER SHARAD CHANDRA NIGAM
Catchwords:	Costs order made in relation to appeal against cost orders made by Deputy Registrar Plaintiff, then appellant, succeeded in obtaining an order for costs in her favour No reference in order to costs of taxation of costs thrown away "Slip rule" Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Frigger v Nigam [2006] WADC 28 Storey & Keers Pty Ltd v Johnstone (1987) 9 NSWLR 446

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : FRIGGER -v- NIGAM [2007] WADC 138 CORAM : FENBURY DCJ HEARD : 9 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 14 AUGUST 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1305 of 2005 BETWEEN : ANGELA FRIGGER

Plaintiff

AND

SHARAD CHANDRA NIGAM

Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs order made in relation to appeal against cost orders made by Deputy Registrar - Plaintiff, then appellant, succeeded in obtaining an order for costs in her favour - No reference in order to costs of taxation of costs thrown away - "Slip rule" - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Order to be amended

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Mr S V Forbes

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Not applicable

Defendant : Stewart Forbes

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

Frigger v Nigam [2006] WADC 28
Storey & Keers Pty Ltd v Johnstone (1987) 9 NSWLR 446

(Page 3)

1 FENBURY DCJ: This matter comprised a five minute hearing of an application by way of a letter that a Deputy Registrar of the Court treated as a motion to amend an order for costs made by me on 21 September 2006 in respect of an appeal against a Deputy Registrar's decision concerning costs (Frigger v Nigam [2006] WADC 28).

2 Ms Frigger was successful in the appeal and she obtained an order for costs in her favour. Ms Frigger represented herself and did not seek any special order in respect of costs she had a right to claim by reason of being successful in the appeal. These costs were, it seems, related to the costs of taxation which may have been thrown away.

3 The extracted order for costs was in the following terms:

"The respondent (defendant) do pay the appellant's costs of the appeal heard on the 1

^st

of February 2006 to be taxed if not agreed."

4 In the very brief hearing before me that occurred on 9 February 2007 the applicant submitted that she was entitled to request that the order for costs she obtained following her success on the appeal should include costs in relation to taxation thrown away. At least this is so far as I could ascertain from Ms Frigger. She sought an amendment…

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 Frigger v Nigam

Details

AGLC: Frigger v Nigam [2007] WADC 138
Case: [2007] WADC 138
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Frigger v Nigam involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who had successfully obtained an order for costs in her favour, and the defendant, who sought to appeal against the cost orders made by the Deputy Registrar. The plaintiff, having initially obtained a costs order in her favour, then appealed against the cost orders. The court was required to consider whether the appeal against the costs orders should be allowed and, if so, the appropriate costs order to be made. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the "slip rule" applied, which would require the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appeal thrown away.

The court considered the application of the "slip rule" and whether it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff had succeeded in obtaining a costs order in her favour, but the defendant sought to appeal against those costs. The court found that the "slip rule" did not apply as the costs order made by the Deputy Registrar did not specifically refer to the costs of taxation of costs thrown away. The court held that the "slip rule" turns on its own facts and did not apply in this case. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs in her favour.

The court subsequently ordered that the order for costs be amended to reflect the appropriate costs order to be made. The court found that the order should be amended to include the costs of the appeal thrown away. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs in her favour, and the order should be amended to reflect this. The court did not find it necessary to speculate on the implications of the decision or to make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order to be amended

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.