GLEW -v- THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2009] WASCA 123 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2009] WASCA 123 (S) | |
| Case No: | CACV:20/2009 | 26 JUNE 2009, 25 MAY 2010 | |
| Coram: | BLAXELL J | 16/07/09 | |
| 25/05/10 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE KENNETH GLEW THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application for review of taxation of costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DECISION : 25 MAY 2010 FILE NO/S : CACV 20 of 2009 BETWEEN : WAYNE KENNETH GLEW
- Appellant
AND
THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for review of taxation of costs - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms S J Keighery
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
1 BLAXELL J: This is an application under O 66 r 55 for review of a taxation of a bill of costs. The costs were ordered to be paid by Mr Glew following the dismissal of his appeal in the present proceedings and the order was that he pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.
2 As the costs were not agreed, they were duly taxed before Registrar Dixon who issued a certificate allowing them at $8,164.12. Order 66 provides for a procedure under which a party dissatisfied with a taxation may object to an allowed item, and r 43 in particular deals with that. However, Mr Glew did not take advantage of that process and he has not at any stage objected to any particular items in the allowed costs.
3 He has nevertheless made the present application under r 55 which is meant to be a review to determine whether the taxing officer made any error in principle when dealing with any objection to a particular item. Because there has never been any objection, there is nothing to be reviewed and there is no basis for the present application. Instead Mr Glew asks that I make no decision at all on his application.
4 Mr Glew nevertheless asks me to find that all of the previous proceedings in this matter are constitutionally invalid. He also asks me to refer the whole of the matter for hearing before a jury. There is no legal merit in these submissions. There is no basis on which I can deal with these issues on the present application which is limited, as I have said, to the question of whether or not the registrar made any error of principle when dealing with any particular item of costs the subject of any objection. There was never any objection to any particular item. There is no basis for this review.
5 This being so, it inevitably follows that the application must be dismissed and I so order.
- AGLC
- Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 123 (S)
- Case
- [2009] WASCA 123 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the taxation of costs was conducted in accordance with the applicable legal principles and whether there were any errors in the assessment of costs by the respondent. The applicant contended that certain costs were not properly allowable or were over-estimated, while the respondent argued that the taxation was conducted correctly and in line with established legal standards.
The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, examining the specific facts and circumstances of the case. It found that the taxation of costs was conducted in accordance with the relevant legal principles and that there were no errors or excesses in the assessment. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the taxation was unjust or that there were grounds for a review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the application for review of the taxation of costs was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application, in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.