Gibson v Commonwealth of Australia

[2002] WASCA 323

GIBSON -v- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR [2002] WASCA 323

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 323
Case No:	FUL:43/2000	Heard:	19 NOVEMBER 2002
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	19/11/02
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL ANTONIO GIBSON COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ADRIAN VAN DER RIJT
Catchwords:	Taxation of costs Application to review decision of taxing officer No error or principle Application dismissed
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GIBSON -v- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR [2002] WASCA 323 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 19 NOVEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 19 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 43 of 2000 BETWEEN : PAUL ANTONIO GIBSON

Appellant

AND

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

ADRIAN VAN DER RIJT
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Taxation of costs - Application to review decision of taxing officer - No error or principle - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
First Respondent : Mr H Pope
Second Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
First Respondent : Australian Government Solicitor
Second Respondent : No appearance

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: In this matter an application is brought by Mr Paul Antonio Gibson, the unsuccessful appellant in an appeal determined by the Full Court on 12 December 2000. When the appeal was dismissed the Full Court, comprising the Honourable the Chief Justice, Pidgeon and Ipp JJ, ordered that the appellant should pay the costs of the appeal to be taxed.

2 Those costs were subsequently taxed before Registrar Dixon in this Court on 30 August 2002, and following a review, were allowed at $4405.45. I should mention that this process involved the costs being taxed down by $550 and the taxing fee correspondingly reduced. This present application is brought to a Judge of the Court pursuant to O 66 r 55 which provides that if a party is dissatisfied with the certificate of the taxing officer as to any item or part of an item objected to under r 53 of that Order, he may within 14 days from the date of the certificate or such other time as the Court or the taxing officer at the time he signs his certificate allows, apply to a Judge in Chambers for an order to review the taxation as to that item or part of that item. The rule goes on to provide that the Judge hearing the objection, if of the opinion that the taxing officer has made an error in principle, may thereupon make such order to rectify the error as the Judge thinks fit. Plainly a review by a Judge of taxation is limited to issues of principle yet the submissions advanced this morning have, in my opinion, attempted to argue matters of degree and quantum and have also verged on a challenge to the entitlement to costs at all not just in the amount allowed.

3 None of the questions raised by the applicant touches any issue of principle. Therefore, I do not consider that I am empowered to review this bill. However, when it came to matters of detail and the objections which were urged against the bill it was apparent that the grounds, even if they had been capable of review, were without substance. There was an objection to the fee for lodging the bill of costs for taxation but on explanation by counsel for the respondent it became apparent that that was the normal taxing fee charged to a corporation.

4 In relation to other matters it was urged that costs should only be allowed on the basis that the matter could have been dealt with in a lower court. However, those provisions of the rules do not apply. This was an appeal in the Full Court which could only be heard by the Full Court and the standard scale of costs has been applied.

5 It was also urged that the amount allowed was excessive on the basis that it was only an interlocutory application, yet it is clear that a

(Page 4)

substantial hearing took place on the appeal which failed for a variety of reasons, all being matters of substance. There is therefore no basis to contend that the costs were wrongly taxed in circumstances where there had only been an interlocutory application or on other grounds. I have no alternative but to refuse the application for review. I dismiss this application to review the costs allowed in relation to the appeal to the Full Court.