HAMDAN -v- WIDODO [No 2] [2010] WASC 6 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASC 6 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1813/2004	Heard:	5 JUNE 2009, 13 JANUARY 2010
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	13/01/10
Supplementary Delivered:	13/01/10
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Interest on costs to run from date of judgment
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMAL HAMDAN SRI WAHJUNI WIDODO
Catchwords:	Interest on legal costs Whether interest was from date of judgment or taxation of costs on other date
Legislation:	Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 8
Case References:	Erven Warnink BV v Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (No 2) [1982] 3 All ER 312 Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] IAC 398 K v K (divorce costs) [1977] Fam 39 Newton v Grand Junction Railway Co (1846) 153 ER 1133 State Planning Commission v Della Vedova (1992) 7 WAR 81

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HAMDAN -v- WIDODO [No 2] [2010] WASC 6 (S) CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 5 JUNE 2009, 13 JANUARY 2010 DELIVERED : 13 JANUARY 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 13 JANUARY 2010 FILE NO/S : CIV 1813 of 2004 BETWEEN : JAMAL HAMDAN

Plaintiff

AND

SRI WAHJUNI WIDODO

Defendant

Catchwords:

Interest on legal costs - Whether interest was from date of judgment or taxation of costs on other date

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 8

Result:

Interest on costs to run from date of judgment

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R J Nash

Defendant : Mr J L H Formby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Butcher Paull & Calder

Defendant : Formbys

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

Erven Warnink BV v Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (No 2) [1982] 3 All ER 312
Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] IAC 398
K v K (divorce costs) [1977] Fam 39
Newton v Grand Junction Railway Co (1846) 153 ER 1133
State Planning Commission v Della Vedova (1992) 7 WAR 81

(Page 3)

1 JOHNSON J: The plaintiff in respect to interest on legal costs made a submission that interest on taxed costs follows the event due to the provisions of s 8 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act.

2 The Civil Judgment Enforcement Act 2004 provides.

8. Interest on judgment sums

(1) Interest is to be paid on the unpaid amount of a judgment sum form the date of the judgment until the date on which the judgment sum is paid -

(a) at the rate prescribed by the regulations; or

(b) at the same rate set by the court in judgment or by an order made after the judgment is given.

3 Section 8 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Act directly replaces s 142 of the Supreme Court Act which was repealed in 2004, and the plaintiff's submission is that the substantive law remains the same, namely that interest runs from the date of judgment. Section 142 provided:

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.

Continue reading Hamdan v Widodo [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Hamdan v Widodo [No 2] [2010] WASC 6 (S)
Case: [2010] WASC 6 (S)
Decision Date: 13 JANUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court was asked to determine the date from which interest on legal costs should commence in the case of Hamdan v Widodo [No 2]. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Mr Hamdan, and the defendant, Mr Widodo, and centred on the calculation of interest on legal costs awarded. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that interest should commence from the date of the judgment, while the defendant contended that interest should run from the date the costs were taxed.

The court considered the statutory provisions and case law governing the accrual of interest on legal costs. It was necessary to determine whether the statutory provision requiring interest to be paid on costs from the date of judgment applied or whether there was a different date prescribed by law or by the parties’ agreement. The court examined the relevant sections of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and previous judicial decisions to ascertain the correct date from which interest should accrue.

The Court held that interest on costs should run from the date of the judgment. It was determined that the statutory provisions and relevant case law supported the plaintiff's position. The court found that the legislative intent was to provide a remedy for the plaintiff by awarding interest from the date the judgment was made, and this was the appropriate date for calculating interest on costs. The court’s decision was grounded in the plain wording of the statute and the established legal principles regarding the accrual of interest on costs.

Consequently, the Court ordered that interest on the legal costs awarded in the judgment should run from the date of judgment. This ruling ensures that the plaintiff receives interest from the date the judgment was made, aligning with the statutory requirements and judicial precedents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Interest on costs to run from date of judgment

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.