Gurwinder Singh v Slater and Gordon - [2018] VSC 574

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COSTS COURT

S CI 2017 01986

GURWINDER SINGH	Applicant
v
SLATER AND GORDON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Keogh J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gurwinder Singh v Slater and Gordon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 574

---

COSTS – Application for review of the decision of an Associate Justice to uphold the order of the Costs Court – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 63.57 – Whether the decision of the Associate Justice was attended by legal, factual or discretionary error – No arguable case for review – Application dismissed – Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 286 (26 August 2010) – Schweppes Limited v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178 – Weingart v Leanne Cain & Associates (No 2) [2018] VSC 245 (18 May 2018).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	G Singh (in person)
For the Respondent	S Cherry	Slater & Gordon

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Mr Singh, was injured in a transport accident in 2011. He brought proceedings in this Court claiming damages for his injuries. Mr Singh was represented in that proceeding by the respondent, Slater and Gordon.

After the proceeding completed, Mr Singh filed a summons for taxation of the respondent’s costs, following which the respondent filed a bill of costs in taxable form (the ‘bill’). With the consent of the parties the bill was assessed in accordance with the procedure in r 63.88 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (the ‘Rules’), which involves the Costs Court making an estimate of the approximate total at which the bill would be taxed without making any determination of the individual items in the bill. In December 2017 an order was made on the taxation for the amount of that estimate (the ‘Costs Court Order’).

Mr Singh applied to review the Costs Court Order on the grounds that he objected to a number of disbursements included in the bill. After a contested hearing an Associate Justice found against Mr Singh in relation to each objection, and dismissed his application. Mr Singh has now applied to review the order made by the Associate Justice.

Procedural matters and the nature of Mr Singh’s application

After a jury trial in the personal injury proceeding, judgment was entered for Mr Singh on 2 March 2017 in the following terms:

1.The defendant pay the plaintiff $1,314,238.70.
2.The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, on the standard basis.
3.There be a certificate for two counsel.
4.There be a certificate for:
(a)senior counsel’s fee on brief at $7,700 per day for 12 days, plus three days of preparation at $7,700 per day, plus four hours of special conferences at $770 per hour;
(b)junior counsel’s fee on brief at $3,850 per day for 11 days, plus three days of preparation at $3,850 per…

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 Gurwinder Singh v Slater and Gordon 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: [2018] VSC 574
Decision Date: 1 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gurwinder Singh, the plaintiff, appealed against the decision of an Associate Justice to uphold an order of the Costs Court, which determined the costs of the proceedings between the plaintiff and Slater and Gordon, the defendants. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought a review of the decision on the grounds that it was attended by legal, factual or discretionary error. The court considered the arguments made by the plaintiff and examined the relevant case law to determine whether there was an arguable case for review.

The legal issue before the court was whether the decision of the Associate Justice was attended by any form of error, and if not, whether the plaintiff had an arguable case for review. The court noted that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the decision was erroneous in a legal, factual or discretionary sense. The court further noted that the plaintiff had to show that there was an arguable case for review, as per the precedent set in Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd. The court also considered the plaintiff's submissions in light of the relevant case law, including Schweppes Limited v Archer and Weingart v Leanne Cain & Associates.

After considering the arguments and the relevant case law, the court determined that there was no legal, factual or discretionary error in the decision of the Associate Justice. The court found that the plaintiff did not have an arguable case for review and dismissed the application. The court held that the decision of the Associate Justice was in accordance with the law and the relevant case law. The court also noted that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any arguable case for review, as required by the precedent set in Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the costs of the proceedings. The decision of the Associate Justice to uphold the order of the Costs Court was therefore affirmed. The plaintiff's application for review was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Orders