Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd - [2004] WADC 165

GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 165

Last Update: 17/08/2004

GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 165
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WADC 165
Case No:	CIV:4707/1999	Heard:	28 APRIL 2004
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN	Delivered:	06/08/2004
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	No jurisdiction to review
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	PAMELA MAY GRIFFITHS DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice Western Australia Practice under then Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Review of taxation conducted under directions Claims for answers to interrogatories and getting up case for trial
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Grigoletto v Myer Properties (WA) Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3667; 31 March 1993 Joyce v Hutchinson (2000) SR (WA) 23 Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 165 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN HEARD : 28 APRIL 2004 DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 4707 of 1999 BETWEEN : PAMELA MAY GRIFFITHS

Plaintiff

AND

DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Practice under then Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia - Review of taxation conducted under directions - Claims for answers to interrogatories and getting up case for trial

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

No jurisdiction to review

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S V Forbes

Defendant : Mr M L Greenland

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

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

Grigoletto v Myer Properties (WA) Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3667; 31 March 1993
Joyce v Hutchinson (2000) SR (WA) 23

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: Under an order for her costs of the action the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the reasonable cost of services necessarily provided to her by her solicitor. The Plaintiff claimed for answers to interrogatories and getting up case for trial. In setting aside determinations made at taxation relating to the extent of recovery for those services Judge Martino gave directions for their valuation. The directions are expressed within the text of his reasons for decision at par 13 and par 14 as follows:

"13 It is my view that following the 1996 Determination in determining an allowance on a taxation for work done by a practitioner or paralegal it is necessary for the taxing officer to have regard to the time spent on the item, whether the work was done by a practitioner or a paralegal and, if done by a practitioner, the level of seniority of that practitioner and the hourly rate charged by the practitioner or the paralegal. Once that information is known the taxing officer should have regard to any other matters that may be relevant to determine whether the charge is a reasonable charge. Other matters…

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: [2004] WADC 165
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Griffiths, who sought review of taxation conducted under the directions of the court in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Griffiths aimed to challenge the taxation that had been imposed following the conclusion of the trial proceedings. The defendant, Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd, resisted the review and argued that the taxation was correctly assessed and was not subject to further review. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the review of taxation and the subsequent steps required in litigation.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the taxation imposed by the court was subject to review and, if so, what process should be followed. The court had to consider the scope of its jurisdiction to review taxation under the Rules and whether the plaintiff had a valid basis for seeking such a review. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there were any procedural errors in the taxation process that warranted intervention.

In its decision, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the taxation imposed in the case. The court held that the Rules did not provide for a right to seek a review of the taxation conducted under the court's directions. The court emphasised that once a taxation had been conducted under its directions, it was final unless there were clear procedural errors or jurisdictional mistakes. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any such errors and, therefore, the taxation could not be reviewed. The court also noted that the plaintiff's claims for answers to interrogatories and the preparation of a case for trial were not relevant to the issue of taxation review.

The court's decision concluded that there was no jurisdiction to review the taxation. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered that the taxation imposed in the case remain as assessed. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the procedures and timelines set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and highlighted the limitations on the court's ability to revise its own decisions once they had been made.

Orders

Orders of the court

No jurisdiction to review

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.