Glew v Shire of Greenough
[2006] WASCA 260 (S)
•1 DECEMBER 2006
GLEW & ANOR -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [2006] WASCA 260 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 260 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:3/2006 | 6 NOVEMBER 2006 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA PULLIN JA BUSS JA | 1/12/06 | |
| 9/01/07 | |||
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appellants to pay respondent's costs | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE KENNETH GLEW KYLIE JUNE GLEW SHIRE OF GREENOUGH |
Catchwords: | Costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (WA), s 13 |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : GLEW & ANOR -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [2006] WASCA 260 (S) CORAM : WHEELER JA
- PULLIN JA
BUSS JA
DECISION : 10 JANUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 3 of 2006 BETWEEN : WAYNE KENNETH GLEW
- First Appellant
KYLIE JUNE GLEW
Second Appellant
AND
SHIRE OF GREENOUGH
Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : WAGER DCJ
Citation : GLEW & ANOR -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [2005] WADC 245
File No : APP 1 of 2005
Catchwords:
Costs - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (WA), s 13
Result:
Appellants to pay respondent's costs
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Appellant : In person
Second Appellant : No appearance
Respondent : Mr K E F Yin
Solicitors:
First Appellant : In person
Second Appellant : No appearance
Respondent : Civic Legal
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 4)
1 WHEELER JA: At the delivery of judgment in this matter on 1 December 2006, counsel for the respondent applied for an order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a solicitor/client basis. By way of a letter dated 4 December 2006, the respondent's solicitors withdrew that application and instead sought an order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed.
2 The appellants were granted leave to file written submissions in response by 15 December 2006.
3 The appellants make six submissions as to why they should not be required to pay the respondent's costs. The first of the submissions refers to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (WA), in particular s 13 and s 14. Section 13 reads as follows:
"13. Immunity for appropriate disclosure of public interest information
A person who makes an appropriate disclosure of public interest information to a proper authority under section 5 -
- a) incurs no civil or criminal liability for doing so; and
b) is not, for doing so, liable –
(i) to any disciplinary action under a written law…"
- "Public interest information" is defined by s 3 as:
"… information that tends to show that, in relation to its performance of a public function … a public officer … is, has been, or proposes to be, involved in -
(a) improper conduct;
(b) an act or omission that constitutes an offence under a written law…"
"Public officers" include, inter alia, Ministers of the Crown and judicial officers.
(Page 5)
4 These sections are not relevant to this case. The allegations made by the appellants against various public officers in relation to the constitutionality of the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (WA) are vexatious and wholly without foundation, and cannot be classified as "public interest information". In any event, the order for costs against the appellants is not sought as a result of their purported disclosure of any such information, but rather as a result of the unsuccessful appeal brought in this Court by the appellants, in relation to the decision that they must pay their local government rates. It is not necessary to set out s 14, which is irrelevant for substantially the same reasons.
5 The appellants' second submission asserts that there is a "Federal Public Interest and Disclosure Act", which provides a fund to cover legal costs in matters of public interest. There is no Act which performs this function, and even if there were, it would not be applicable in this situation for the reasons outlined above.
6 The third submission asserts that it is an offence under the Criminal Code (WA) to not report an indictable offence. No indictable offence is in issue in this case. Submission 4 refers to s 73 Constitution Act 1889 (WA), which is irrelevant to the issue of costs. Submissions 5 and 6 relate to the respondent's application for indemnity costs that has since been withdrawn.
7 In summary, the appellants' submissions do not demonstrate any reason as to why costs should not follow the event. The order will therefore be that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed.
8 PULLIN JA: I agree with Wheeler JA.
9 BUSS JA: I agree with Wheeler JA.
0