Hingston v Challiston Pty Ltd

[2006] WADC 132

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   HINGSTON -v- CHALLISTON PTY LTD & ORS [2006] WADC 132

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD:   5 MAY 2006

DELIVERED          :   28 AUGUST 2006

FILE NO/S:   CIV 295 of 2003

BETWEEN:   BRADLEY HINGSTON

Plaintiff

AND

CHALLISTON PTY LTD
First Defendant

DEAN GEORGE SCOOK
CAROL NORMA HARDIE
Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia - Review of taxation - sufficiency of objection - Getting up case for trial

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objection not within the scope of r 53(1)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr S Forbes

First Defendant             :     No appearance

Second Defendants       :     Mr H R Robinson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Paiker & Overmeire

First Defendant             :     Haydn Robinson

Second Defendants       :     Haydn Robinson

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

May v Vincent Smith as Administrator for Cole Engineering Pty Ltd (Under Administration) & Anor [2001] WASC 352

Roblett v Pieroni [2005] WADC 215

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN:  Under the order for the costs of the action the plaintiff was entitled to the reasonable cost of services necessarily provided to him for the purposes of the action.  His bill of costs was taxed and the defendants have filed a notice of objection in the following terms:

   "The Defendants object to the allowance of $14,000.00 for Item 16 Getting up for Trial and contend the allowance should have been an amount not in excess of $3,000.00.

   The reasons for the objection are:

   1.A getting up component is already included in items 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11.

   2.To settle the SOC, apply for summary judgment, argue the summary judgment before Deputy Registrar Harman and appeal before Marino DCJ, brief counsel for the appeal plus the work done by counsel covered by Item 17, means the Plaintiff had substantially got the case up for trial before the Entry for Trial.

   3.The amount of work required by the Plaintiff's solicitor in getting up over and above the work already done and covered by the other items should therefore have been minimal.

   4.A proof was required from the Plaintiff but he must have already provided a proof prior to the Entry for Trial, evidenced by his affidavits and the pleadings.

   5.The Plaintiff's solicitor conferred with others including Wallace (sic) Bleakley (sic) and other investors who had signed like deeds as referred to in the SOC.  This does not mean the Defendants should pay for the costs thus incurred, because none of those witnesses would have been allowed to give evidence, all being irrelevant.

   6.The Plaintiff proposed to call Travers, Shann and Hardie but did not take proofs from any of them.

   7.The issues for determination were fundamentally questions of law.  There was very little in issue on the facts.

   8.     The issues included:

   ·was the instrument relied upon by the Plaintiff a deed?

   ·was the instrument duly signed?

   ·did the Plaintiff duly exercise the put option in terms required by…