Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

[2014] WASCA 115 (S)

GIUDICE -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2014] WASCA 115 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 115 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:99/2012	Heard:	4 JUNE 2014
Coram:	MARTIN CJ BUSS JA EDELMAN J	Delivered:	17/06/14
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	No order as to costs of the appeal
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER GEORGE GIUDICE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Whether no order should be made as to costs Unnecessary costs incurred due to unsatisfactory grounds of appeal
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : GIUDICE -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2014] WASCA 115 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ

BUSS JA
EDELMAN J

HEARD : 4 JUNE 2014 DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 99 of 2012 BETWEEN : PETER GEORGE GIUDICE

Appellant

AND

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

MS S GILLETT (MEMBER)
MR C PHILLIPS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

Citation : LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and GIUDICE [2012] WASAT 144

File No : VR 113 of 2011, VR 114 of 2011

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether no order should be made as to costs - Unnecessary costs incurred due to unsatisfactory grounds of appeal

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

No order as to costs of the appeal

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
Respondent : Mr M D Cuerden & Ms P Le Miere

Solicitors:

Appellant : D L Armstrong
Respondent : Legal Profession Complaints Committee

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

Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115



1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 4 June 2014, the court published its reasons1 for concluding that the practitioner's appeal should be allowed, the decision of the Tribunal from which he appealed set aside, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration and determination in accordance with the reasons of the court.

2 In those reasons, Martin CJ expressed the provisional view that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal. In support of that view he observed:

Although the practitioner has been successful, he has succeeded on a ground which was proposed by the court during the course of argument. The four grounds of appeal which were advanced on behalf of the practitioner were largely incoherent and have no doubt required the LPCC to incur unnecessary costs in responding to them. It is my provisional view that those costs, for which the practitioner should bear responsibility, should be set off against the costs to which the practitioner might be entitled by reason of his success, with the result that there should be no order as to costs.2

The other members of the court (Buss JA and Edelman J) agreed with those views.3

3 Notwithstanding the expression of those views, the practitioner has applied for an order that the LPCC pay 50% of his costs of the appeal. The only argument put in support of that application was to the effect that the practitioner was ultimately successful and that he incurred at least some costs which were not directly referable to the grounds of appeal that were described by the court as 'largely incoherent'. However, that proposition misses the point of the earlier observations of the court. The point of those observations was to the effect that the costs to which the practitioner should be entitled by reason of his success should be set off against the costs to which the LPCC should be entitled because of the unsatisfactory nature of the grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of the practitioner, with the result that those countervailing entitlements effectively cancelled each other. Nothing said in support of the practitioner's application for costs diminishes the force of that reasoning, which should be maintained. Accordingly, there will be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

______________________________________

1Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115.
2 [2014] WASCA 115 [55].
3 [2014] WASCA 115 [119], [161].