HASLEBY -v- DRAGICEVICH & ANOR [2002] WASC 159 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 159 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1936/1999	Heard:	16-18 JANUARY, 20 JUNE & 18 JULY 2002
Coram:	PARKER J	Delivered:	20/06/02
Supplementary Delivered:	31/07/02
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARILYN ANNE HASLEBY KATE NEVES DRAGICEVICH REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532 Duvall v Godfrey Virtue & Co (a firm) [2001] WASCA 163 Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HASLEBY -v- DRAGICEVICH & ANOR [2002] WASC 159 (S) CORAM : PARKER J HEARD : 16-18 JANUARY, 20 JUNE & 18 JULY 2002 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2002 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 31 JULY 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1936 of 1999 BETWEEN : MARILYN ANNE HASLEBY

Plaintiff

AND

KATE NEVES DRAGICEVICH

First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr A C Thorpe

First Defendant : Mr A O Karstaedt

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : A C Thorpe

First Defendant : Karp Steedman Ross-Adjie

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532
Duvall v Godfrey Virtue & Co (a firm) [2001] WASCA 163
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 PARKER J: This is a supplementary decision dealing with issues of costs and the final orders to be made in consequence of the reserved decision delivered in this matter on 20 June 2002.

Amendment to plaintiff's prayer for relief

2 The plaintiff now seeks to amend her prayer for relief in the statement of claim, following the reserved decision, to seek a declaration that she has a continuing caveatable interest in the property.

3 There are two significant problems. First, the lateness of the application as to which the only real justification would appear to be, in truth, that in view of the reasons for decision this might strengthen the plaintiff's position with regard to enforcing the payment of the moneys due under the judgment and securing costs. That does not appear to be a sound basis for an amendment of this nature at this stage.

4 Secondly, and more fundamentally, even were the amendment to be allowed I do not see that the relief claimed could be granted. The parties entered into a partnership agreement. The plaintiff advanced moneys for the purposes of the partnership and inter alia with those moneys the partnership purchased land. While the land was purchased in the name of the first defendant it was in truth a purchase by the partnership. As a consequence the plaintiff had an equitable interest in the property and this interest…

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 Hasleby v DRAGICEVICH

Details

AGLC: Hasleby v DRAGICEVICH [2002] WASC 159 (S)
Case: [2002] WASC 159 (S)
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hasleby v Dragicevic was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose between the plaintiff, Hasleby, and the defendant, Dragicevic, concerning costs incurred in a legal proceeding. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the costs sought by Dragicevic were appropriate and whether they should be awarded. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the case to ascertain whether the matter turned on its own facts.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of costs in a proceeding where the plaintiff had sought an injunction and declaratory relief. The court was required to determine whether the costs incurred by Dragicevic were reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the court had to decide if the matter's outcome was such that it turned on its own unique facts, thereby justifying the costs sought. This involved an analysis of the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the issues, and the conduct of the parties involved.

The court found that the proceedings did indeed turn on their own unique facts, warranting the costs sought by Dragicevic. It was determined that the complexity of the case, coupled with the necessity of the extensive legal work performed, justified the award of costs. The court emphasised that the unique circumstances of the case necessitated a detailed and thorough legal approach, which in turn justified the costs incurred. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Dragicevic, awarding the costs sought. The final orders of the court were that Dragicevic was to be awarded the costs sought in the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

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.