Hall v City Apartments Pty Ltd

Case [2024] SASC 64

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Appeal to a Single Judge)

HALL & ANOR v CITY APARTMENTS PTY LTD

[2024] SASC 64

Judgment of the Honourable Justice McIntyre  

16 May 2024

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - APPEALS AS TO COSTS

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT - APPEAL, REVIEW OR REFERENCE - PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE - MODES OF APPEAL, REVIEW OR REFERENCE

The original proceedings commenced in 2006.  Costs orders were made in 2007.  A Master of the Supreme Court undertook a line by line taxation of over 1,400 individual items out of a total number of over 3000 items before finalising the taxation by way of a lump sum assessment of the remaining items under Uniform Civil Rule 195.9.

The appellants sought a review of the lump sum assessment decision, which was dismissed by the Master.  The appellants now seek leave to appeal that review decision under Uniform Civil Rule 213.1 citing four appeal grounds.

Held: The decision is not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal, nor does it raise an issue of general principle or importance.  Leave to appeal is accordingly declined.

Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) rr 195.9, 195.12. 213.1, referred to.
Hall & Others v City of Burnside & Others [2023] SASC 173; Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v BDR Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 346; Collins v Djunaedi [2023] SASCA 97; English v Emery Reinbold & Strick Ltd (2002) 3 ALL ER 305, considered.

HALL & ANOR v CITY APARTMENTS PTY LTD

[2024] SASC 64

Single Judge Appeal: Civil

  1. McINTYRE J:   This is an application for leave to appeal under rule 213.1 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (‘UCR’) against a decision by a Master of the Supreme Court relating to an application to review a decision regarding taxation of costs.

  2. For the reasons that follow I decline to grant leave to appeal.

    Background

  3. The original proceedings commenced in 2006, with an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the construction of a residential property on land adjacent to the land of the applicants.  In 2007 Bleby J made costs orders requiring the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.  Some of these costs were awarded on an indemnity basis.  The respondent’s claim extended to more than 3,000 items.  Over a period of several years, the Master, Judge Dart, adjudicated more than 1,400 individual items and delivered a number of rulings on various issues of principle. 

  4. The Master then proposed to finalise the taxation by way of a lump sum assessment of the remaining items under UCR r 195.9(1)(a) and ordered the parties to file written submissions.  A hearing was set for supplementary oral submissions on 5 December 2023.  On the same day The Master delivered an ex tempore decision fixing a lump sum.  The untaxed fees and disbursements were fixed in a total amount of $42,620…

Continue reading Hall v City Apartments Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hall v City Apartments Pty Ltd [2024] SASC 64
Case
[2024] SASC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal against a decision to deny leave to appeal the taxation of costs in proceedings between Hall and City Apartments Pty Ltd. The original matter commenced in 2006 with an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from constructing a residential property adjacent to the applicants' land. The proceedings extended to over 3,000 items, and Bleby J made costs orders in 2007, requiring the appellants to pay the respondent's costs, some on an indemnity basis. After several years of adjudication, the Master proposed a lump sum assessment of the remaining items, leading to dissatisfaction from the appellants. The Master fixed the untaxed fees and disbursements in a total amount of $42,620, which the appellants challenged in their request for a review.

The legal issues before the court were whether the lump sum assessment of the costs was fair and reasonable, and whether the Master had given sufficient weight to the appellants' submissions in making the orders. The appellants argued that the Master's application of a 55% reduction for solicitor's fees and a 32% reduction for counsel fees was insufficient to arrive at a fair and reasonable result. They also contended that it would have been reasonable to tax counsel fees in the normal way and that the allowance for miscellaneous disbursements was inadequate due to insufficient information provided.

The court declined to grant leave to appeal, finding that the Master's decision was not unreasonable or unjust. The court noted that the Master had exercised his discretion in assessing the costs and had given proper consideration to the appellants' submissions. The court held that the Master's decision to apply a percentage reduction to the untaxed fees was a reasonable approach, given the extensive adjudication that had already taken place. The court also found that the Master's decision to allow $2,000 for miscellaneous disbursements was reasonable in the circumstances, despite the appellants' contentions.

The court's decision underscores the importance of the Master's discretion in assessing costs and the need for parties to provide sufficient information to support their claims. The court found that the Master had exercised his discretion reasonably and had given proper consideration to the appellants' submissions, and therefore declined to grant leave to appeal. The court's decision also highlights the importance of providing sufficient information to support claims for costs, particularly in complex litigation involving multiple parties and extensive adjudication.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow I decline to grant leave to appeal.Background The original proceedings commenced in 2006, with an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the construction of a residential property on land adjacent to the land of the applicants. In 2007 Bleby J made costs orders requiring the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs. Some of these costs were awarded on an indemnity basis. The respondent’s claim extended to more than 3,000 items. Over a period of several years, the Master, Judge Dart, adjudicated more than 1,400 individual items and delivered a number of rulings on various issues of principle. The Master then proposed to finalise the taxation by way of a lump sum assessment of the remaining items under UCR r 195.9(1)(a) and ordered the parties to file written submissions. A hearing was set for supplementary oral submissions on 5 December 2023. On the same day The Master delivered an ex tempore decision fixing a lump sum. The untaxed fees and disbursements were fixed in a total amount of $42,620 made up as follows:·Solicitor’s fees: The Master fixed the untaxed solicitor’s fees in the amount of $54,000 by splitting the difference between the amount claimed by the respondent ($57,346.74) and that contended by the appellants ($56,059.58) and by deducting an amount for the respondent’s failure to provide documents or provide a proper explanation for those amounts. The Master then noted that, of the over 1,400 items that had been taxed in relation to solicitors’ fees, 55% had been taxed off. He therefore applied the same percentage reduction to the untaxed fees to fix solicitor’s fees in the sum of $24,300. ·Counsel fees: The respondent claimed $29,459 whereas the appellants submitted that the appropriate amount for counsel fees was $28,010. These fees included costs of mediation that the parties accepted did not fall within the scope of the orders made by Bleby J. The Master rounded counsel fees down to $24,000 to take account of the costs of counsel preparing for and attending mediation. Counsel fees that had been previously taxed were reduced by a lesser percentage than the solicitors’ fees; 32% had been taxed off. The Master applied the same percentage reduction bringing the overall figure for counsel fees to $16,320. ·Disbursements: The Master allowed an amount of $2,000 for disbursements against a claim of $2,268. Review decision The appellants were dissatisfied with the outcome of the lump sum taxation and requested a review citing five grounds of review:[1]1.In making the orders the court has not given sufficient weight to the matters referred to in the Applicants’ submissions FDN 159 and, in particular, in paragraphs 1-7, 12‑33, 35, 36-37, and 38-44 thereof.2.The application of a 55% reduction for solicitor’s fees to arrive at a lump sum is insufficient to arrive at a fair and reasonable result having regard to the matters referred to in the said paragraphs 12-33 and 35.3.The application of a 32% reduction for counsel fees to arrive at a lump sum is insufficient to arrive at a fair and reasonable result having regard to the matters referred to in the said paragraphs 35 and 38-44.4.Alternatively, it would have been reasonable to tax counsel fees in the normal way having regard to the matters referred to in the said paragraphs 35 and 38-44.5.The allowance of $2,000 for miscellaneous disbursements was made when the nature and status of those amounts remained in question and uncertain as insufficient information had been provided, and does not sufficiently allow for the matters referred to in the said paragraphs 36 and 37.[1] Hall & Ors v City of Burnside & Ors [2023] SASC 173 at [21]. (‘Hall’).

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.