Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd - [2005] WADC 28

GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2005] WADC 28

Last Update: 28/02/2005

GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2005] WADC 28
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WADC 28
Case No:	CIV:4707/1999	Heard:	25 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	MARTINO DCJ	Delivered:	23/02/2005
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Objection allowed Bill of costs remitted to another Taxing Officer
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	PAMELA MAY GRIFFITHS DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Review of taxation Reasonableness of claims Failure of Taxing Officer to comply with earlier decision allowing objections
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas (1994) 10 WAR 191

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2005] WADC 28 CORAM : MARTINO DCJ HEARD : 25 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 23 FEBRUARY 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 4707 of 1999 BETWEEN : PAMELA MAY GRIFFITHS

Plaintiff

AND

DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Review of taxation - Reasonableness of claims - Failure of Taxing Officer to comply with earlier decision allowing objections

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objection allowed
Bill of costs remitted to another Taxing Officer

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S V Forbes

Defendant : Ms M G Saraceni

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas (1994) 10 WAR 191

(Page 3)

1 MARTINO DCJ: The plaintiff was injured in an accident on 18 January 1994. The defendant was her employer. In this action she claimed damages for those injuries. She was successful and judgment was entered in her favour on 23 August 2002.

2 Her bill of costs was taxed by Deputy Registrar Harman in November 2002. By my decision delivered on 5 June 2003, [2003] WADC 123, I allowed the defendant's objection to items in that bill of costs.

3 Two of the items I disallowed were the sums of $1,180 for answers to interrogatories and $21,000 for getting up case for trial. The claims for those items in the bill of costs were $1,180 and $24,990 respectively.

4 My reasons were that in taxing the items it was necessary for the Taxing Officer to have regard to the time spent, the level of seniority over the person or persons who did the work, and the hourly rate charged. In my reasons I noted that once that information was known the Taxing Officer should have regard to any other matter that might be relevant to determine whether the charge was reasonable. I remitted the bill of costs back to Deputy Registrar Harman for taxation in accordance with my reasons.

5 For the purpose of that taxation the solicitors for the plaintiff provided to Deputy Registrar Harman a print out of their time records. On the taxation Deputy Registrar Harman again allowed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] WADC 28
Decision Date: 23 FEBRUARY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd, brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, a cleaning company, in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant's liability was not disputed, but the plaintiff's costs were. The Court was required to review the taxation of the plaintiff's costs, which had been objected to by the defendant. The defendant's objections were based on the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's costs claims, and the failure of the Taxing Officer to comply with an earlier decision that allowed objections to the plaintiff's costs.

The court found that the defendant's objections were valid, and that the plaintiff's costs claims were unreasonable. The Taxing Officer had failed to properly consider the defendant's objections and had not complied with the earlier decision that allowed objections to the plaintiff's costs. The court found that the Taxing Officer had not provided sufficient reasons for his decision and had not properly exercised his discretion in assessing the plaintiff's costs. The court found that the plaintiff's costs claims were excessive and not in line with the principles of cost recovery.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant's objections were allowed, and the bill of costs was remitted to another Taxing Officer for reassessment. The court emphasised the importance of Taxing Officers properly considering objections to costs and exercising their discretion in a fair and reasonable manner. The court also highlighted the need for Taxing Officers to provide clear and detailed reasons for their decisions. The final orders of the court were that the defendant's objections were allowed, and the bill of costs was remitted to another Taxing Officer for reassessment. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Objection allowed

Bill of costs remitted to another Taxing Officer

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.