HOSKINS and DANIEL VINCI T/As D'VINCI CONTRACTING
Case
•
[2011] WASAT 188
•24 NOVEMBER 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
HOSKINS and DANIEL VINCI T/As D'VINCI CONTRACTING [2011] WASAT 188
[2011] WASAT 188
24 NOVEMBER 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Hoskins and Daniel Vinci trading as D'Vinci Contracting, the applicants sought an order for costs under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). The dispute arose from a complaint regarding the quality of building services provided by D'Vinci Contracting, and the subsequent proceedings before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of Western Australia. The applicants argued that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, warranting an award of costs against the respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The court was required to determine whether the principles set out in the Act applied to the circumstances of the case, and if so, whether the application for costs should be successful. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the proceedings were indeed frivolous and vexatious, and if the application for costs was justified. The court also had to examine the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded if the application was successful.
In its judgment, the court found that the principles applicable under the Act did indeed apply to the case. The court held that the proceedings brought by the applicants were frivolous and vexatious, as they were brought without any reasonable prospect of success and were intended to harass or cause unnecessary expense to the respondent. The court further found that the application for costs was justified, and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the amount of $10,000. The court noted that this was a partial success for the applicants, as they had not been awarded all of the costs they sought.
In summary, the court found that the applicants' proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and awarded costs against them in the amount of $10,000. The court's decision provides guidance on the principles to be applied when determining applications for costs under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).
The court was required to determine whether the principles set out in the Act applied to the circumstances of the case, and if so, whether the application for costs should be successful. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the proceedings were indeed frivolous and vexatious, and if the application for costs was justified. The court also had to examine the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded if the application was successful.
In its judgment, the court found that the principles applicable under the Act did indeed apply to the case. The court held that the proceedings brought by the applicants were frivolous and vexatious, as they were brought without any reasonable prospect of success and were intended to harass or cause unnecessary expense to the respondent. The court further found that the application for costs was justified, and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the amount of $10,000. The court noted that this was a partial success for the applicants, as they had not been awarded all of the costs they sought.
In summary, the court found that the applicants' proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and awarded costs against them in the amount of $10,000. The court's decision provides guidance on the principles to be applied when determining applications for costs under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Riviera Homes (WA) Pty Ltd v Mathew [2025] WASC 370
Cases Citing This Decision
86
BACICH and T & H NOMINEES PTY LTD
[2025] WASAT 63 (S)
HOPKINSON and DALGETY BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD
[2025] WASAT 111
DRYLAND and TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD
[2025] WASAT 31 (S)
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
6
Cachia v Hanes
[1994] HCA 14
Clifford v Shire of Busselton
[2007] WASAT 89
Lai & Anor and Costa
[2006] WASAT 117