Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 123

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GRIFFITHS -v- DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD [2003] WADC 123

CORAM: MARTINO DCJ

HEARD: 9 MAY 2003

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 4707 of 1999

BETWEEN: PAMELA MAY GRIFFITHS
Plaintiff
AND
DELRON CLEANING PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Review of taxation - Regard to time spent and seniority of practitioners who did work - Disbursements - Claim for cost of medical reports required for determination before damages could be awarded

Legislation:

Acts Amendment (Legal Costs) Act 1997

Legal Practitioners Act 1893

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Objections allowed
Bill of costs remitted back to Taxing Officer

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):

Corwest Management Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6696; 5 May 1987
Joyce v Hutchinson (2000) 23 SR (WA) 248
Klahn v Talbot, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950628; 20 November 1995

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bray v Ryan [1999] WADC 66
Grigoletto v Myer Properties WA Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3667; 31 March 1993
Mascarenhas v Western Mining Corporation - Nickel Division [2002] WADC 250
Mentors, Limited v Evans [1912] 3 KB 174
O'Leary v St Marks International College, unreported; Compensation Magistrate's Court; Library No 759; 14 November 1994
Re Melbourne Parking Station Ltd [1929] VLR 5
Reed v Gray [1952] Ch 337
Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178
Smith v Buller (1875) 19 LR Eq 473
Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WADC 150
Western Australian Bank v Royal Insurance Co (1908) 5 CLR 533

MARTINO DCJ:

Background

On 18 January 1994 the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment by the defendant. In this action the plaintiff has successfully claimed damages for those injuries.
On 4 November 2002 the plaintiff's bill of costs was taxed by Deputy Registrar Harman. On 28 February 2003 Deputy Registrar Harman disallowed the defendant's objection to items allowed in the taxation.
The defendant applied for leave to appeal against Deputy Registrar Harman's decision of 28 February 2003. When that application came on for hearing before me the defendant applied to file out of time an application for review of the taxation pursuant to O 66 r 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff did not oppose the extension of time. I granted the extension of time and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The objections

The defendant objects to the following allowances in the plaintiff's bill of costs:

Item No

Date

Description

Scale Item

Amount Allowed

14

1/3/02

Plaintiff's answers to defendant's interrogatories

10(b)

1,180

17

Getting up case for trial

13

21,000

35

Dr G T Wong on report 21/10/96

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: [2003] WADC 123
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffiths v Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr. Griffiths, brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, Delron Cleaning Pty Ltd, following an incident that occurred at the defendant's premises. The dispute centred around the costs incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing the claim and the quantum of those costs. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to include the cost of medical reports as part of the costs for which the defendant would be liable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs of obtaining medical reports, which were necessary for the determination of the case before damages could be awarded, were properly includable in the costs for which the defendant was liable. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff had properly taxed the costs and whether the amount claimed was reasonable and necessary. The defendant argued that the costs of the medical reports were not recoverable as they were not part of the "costs of and incidental to the proceedings."

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law concerning costs in personal injury actions. The court held that the costs of obtaining medical reports were indeed costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as they were necessary for the plaintiff to establish the extent of his injuries. The court further found that the plaintiff had reasonably and properly taxed the costs, taking into account the time spent by the various practitioners involved and their respective seniority. The court also considered the defendant's submissions regarding the amount claimed, but ultimately found that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary.

The court ordered that the costs of the medical reports were to be included in the costs for which the defendant was liable. The defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff's costs as taxed, subject to the defendant's right to appeal the quantum of the costs. The court's decision provided clarity on the recoverability of medical report costs in personal injury cases and reinforced the importance of proper taxation of costs in litigation.

Orders