HODGKINSON -v- DOEPEL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PTY LTD [2006] WASC 237 (S)

Link to Appeal :

[2008] WASCA 262

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 237 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2698/2001	Heard:	15-19, 22-26, 29 & 30 AUGUST 2005, 7 MARCH 2007
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	27/10/06
Supplementary Delivered:	5/06/07
No of pages:	32	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for special costs order granted in respect of certain items
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EDWARD WILLIAM HODGKINSON DOEPEL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PTY LTD (ACN 069 628 440) KELLY SUSAN HODGKINSON
Catchwords:	Costs Application for special costs Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 215 Removal of time limits Whether costs allowable under Legal Costs Determinations are inadequate Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 210, s 215 Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 58W Rules of the Supreme Court, O 66 r 12(1), O 66 r 13(c)
Case References:	Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122(S) Green v Wilden Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 83 Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26 (S2) Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASC 137 Townsend v Collova [2005] WASC 4(S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HODGKINSON -v- DOEPEL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PTY LTD [2006] WASC 237 (S) CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 15-19, 22-26, 29 & 30 AUGUST 2005, 7 MARCH 2007 DELIVERED : 27 OCTOBER 2006 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 5 JUNE 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2698 of 2001 BETWEEN : EDWARD WILLIAM HODGKINSON

Plaintiff

AND

DOEPEL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PTY LTD (ACN 069 628 440)

Defendant

(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)

DOEPEL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PTY LTD (ACN 069 628 440)

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

AND

EDWARD WILLIAM HODGKINSON

First Defendant by Counterclaim

(Page 2)

KELLY SUSAN HODGKINSON

Second Defendant by Counterclaim

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

Catchwords:

Costs - Application for special costs - Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 215 - Removal of time limits - Whether costs allowable under Legal Costs Determinations are inadequate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 210, s 215

Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 58W
Rules of the Supreme Court, O 66 r 12(1), O 66 r 13(c)

Result:

Application for special costs order granted in respect of certain items

Category: B

(Page 3)

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Defendant : Mr S V Forbes

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : J D Finlay & Co

Defendant : Phillips Fox

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Mr S V Forbes

First Defendant by Counterclaim : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Second Defendant by Counterclaim : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Phillips Fox

First Defendant by Counterclaim : J D Finlay & Co

Second Defendant by Counterclaim : J D Finlay & Co

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

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 Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd 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: [2006] WASC 237 (S)
Decision Date: 27 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hodgkinson, the appellant, lodged an application for special costs against Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd, the respondent. The application was lodged in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and centred on the adequacy of costs awarded under the Legal Costs Determinations. Hodgkinson contended that the costs awarded were inadequate and sought an order under section 215 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) to allow for the recovery of additional costs.

The primary legal issue the court was required to decide was whether the costs awarded to Hodgkinson under the Legal Costs Determinations were inadequate. The court had to consider whether there were circumstances that justified the imposition of special costs, particularly in light of section 215 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). This section allows for the removal of time limits for the recovery of costs where the costs awarded are deemed inadequate. The court had to determine whether Hodgkinson's situation warranted the application of this provision.

The court found that the costs awarded to Hodgkinson were indeed inadequate. It held that the circumstances of the case were unique and warranted the imposition of special costs. The court relied on the specific facts of the case to justify its decision, noting that the costs awarded did not fully compensate Hodgkinson for the services rendered. The court granted the application for special costs in respect of certain items, allowing for the recovery of additional costs beyond those determined under the Legal Costs Determinations.

The court made an order granting the application for special costs in respect of specific items. This order enabled Hodgkinson to recover additional costs that were not covered by the Legal Costs Determinations, providing a measure of compensation for the inadequacy of the initial costs awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for special costs order granted in respect of certain items

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.