Hoskins v Ramsden - [2008] WASC 28 (S)

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL
CITATION	:	HOSKINS -v- RAMSDEN [2008] WASC 28 (S)

CORAM

: TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD

:	6 FEBRUARY 2008 & ON THE PAPERS (SUBMISSIONS FILED 12 MARCH 2008)

DELIVERED

:	7 MARCH 2008

SUPPLEMENTARY

DECISION

:	5 MAY 2008

FILE NO/S

:	SJA 1074 of 2007 SJA 1075 of 2007

BETWEEN

: HELEN LORRAINE HOSKINS

DENICE BETTY PEARSON
Appellants
AND
ANDREW JOHN RAMSDEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction	:	MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram	:	MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS
File No	:	MI 9419 - 9440 of 2005, MI 9395 - 9416 of 2005

[2008] WASC 28 (S)

Catchwords:

Costs - Unsuccessful appeals against conviction and sentence - No reason to depart from rule that costs follow the event

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants	:	Mr H Sklarz
Respondent	:	Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

Appellants	:	Henry Sklarz
Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Nil

TEMPLEMAN J

[2008] WASC 28 (S)

TEMPLEMAN J: On 7 March 2008, I made orders dismissing the appellants' appeals against conviction and sentence. I considered that the appropriate order in relation to costs would be that the appellants should pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. I made an order to that effect, but suspended its operation for a short period at the request of the appellants' counsel who wanted to consider my reasons and to make such submissions as he thought fit in support of costs orders which would be more favourable to his clients.

2 On 12 March 2008, I received a written submission from counsel in
which he seeks an order that each party bear its own costs. The order is sought under s 14(1)(h) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) which gives the court a wide discretion in relation to costs orders in appeals and in the proceedings giving rise to those appeals.

I accept that the court has a wide discretion, although, of course, that discretion must be exercised judicially.
In the present case, counsel for the appellants based his submission on four grounds. I deal with each in turn.

Hardship to the appellants

Counsel submits that the appellants have limited resources, such that an order to pay the respondent's costs, in addition to the fine of $30,000, would be oppressive.

6 Counsel raised the appellants' financial position in the appeal against
sentence. As I noted in [94] of my reasons, counsel submitted that the appellants would be 'financially crippled' by the imposition of a $30,000 fine on their household. However, when I asked counsel for the basis on which he made the assertion that the appellants would be 'financially crippled', he effectively withdrew that proposition. As I then noted, counsel was right to do so because there was no evidence to support it. As I noted further, the evidence was to the contrary. It was that the appellants had amassed 'substantial personal assets…

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 Hoskins v Ramsden

Details

AGLC: Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASC 28 (S)
Case: [2008] WASC 28 (S)
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoskins v Ramsden, the defendant, Hoskins, sought a review of a decision to award costs against him following an unsuccessful appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Hoskins had been convicted of multiple offences including robbery, assault, and false imprisonment, and subsequently appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court had awarded costs against Hoskins in the amount of $17,500.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the award of costs against Hoskins was appropriate, given the unsuccessful nature of his appeal. Hoskins argued that the award of costs should not follow, as the appeal was not entirely without merit and had raised significant points that warranted consideration. The respondent, Ramsden, contended that the usual rule that costs follow the event should apply, and that Hoskins should bear the costs of the appeal.

The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party in a legal proceeding typically bears the costs of the litigation. The court acknowledged that there may be exceptional circumstances where this principle should not apply, but found that no such circumstances existed in this case. The court held that the appeal was wholly without merit and that the award of costs was appropriate. The court noted that the appeal had not raised any significant points of law or fact that would warrant a departure from the usual rule. The court also considered the conduct of the parties during the litigation and found that there were no grounds to depart from the usual rule.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award of costs against Hoskins. The court found that the appeal had been wholly without merit and that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The final orders of the court were that Hoskins was to pay the costs of the appeal in the amount of $17,500, together with interest.

Orders