Hull v Hull

[2011] WADC 127

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   HULL -v- HULL [2011] WADC 127

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED          :   18 AUGUST 2011

FILE NO/S:   APP 46 of 2010

BETWEEN:   JEFFREY GORDON HULL

Appellant

AND

MICHELLE CAROLINE HULL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia 1971 - Application to review taxation - Turns on its facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objections not sustained

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Not applicable

Respondent:     Not applicable

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Not applicable

Respondent:     Shadgett Legal

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

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN:  On 30 March 2011 the respondent obtained an order for the costs of the appeal.  On 1 August 2011 I taxed the respondent's bill of costs.  It included items 'appearance in chambers', 'preparation for hearing - including appearances (hearing adjourned on one occasion) and client meetings', 'hearing of appeal' and drawing the bill.

2. The appellant has brought in what I take to be an objection for the purposes of O 66 r 53 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971.  Part of the reason for reaching that conclusion is that the appellant is not represented.

3. In his letter dated 8 August 2011 he states in part as follows:

   I am writing my protest within the 9 days … I feel these costs were exaggerated as we were only in court all up a few hours and the other costs are hearsay I have had no paperwork on this at all.

4. Whatever the appellant means by not having paperwork I can only state that on 1 August 2011 I was satisfied that the appellant would not be disadvantaged if I then proceeded to tax the bill.  In light of the fact that according to the file the appellant was present in chambers on 14 September 2010 and 1 March 2011; on 12 November 2010: the first occasion that the appeal was due to be heard and the date that it was heard, what the appellant means when he refers to the other costs being hearsay is difficult to imagine. 

5. The only issue that is addressed by the appellant in his letter with any precision is that 'we were only in court all up a few hours'. 

6. As I understood it to be the case, the claim for the chambers appearance was for the directions hearing on 14 September 2010 before a registrar.  Of the amount claimed by the respondent $200 was recovered upon taxation. Of a maximum of $3,410 provided by the scale for that service, in my view that was a reasonable sum.

7. As I understood it to be the case the appearances on the first date that the appeal was listed for hearing and at the subsequent directions hearing were included in the claim for preparation for trial.  At taxation the appellant heard the respondent's explanation that a significant feature of the preparation undertaken involved reading a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate.  I did not record the number of pages of transcript but I recall that it was significant.  Of the amount claimed the respondent recovered $2,200.  Of a maximum of $3,410 as provided by the scale for that service, in my view that was a reasonable sum.

8. As to the hearing of the appeal, according to the associate's record it commenced at 10.30 am and concluded at 12.23 pm: roughly two hours.  The scale fee for a day is a maximum of $6,820.  In my opinion, roughly $3,400 is available for an appeal of some complexity that lasts half a hearing day.  The hearing did not last that long.  The simplicity of the issues raised on the appeal determined that the respondent should only recover a modest amount.  In my opinion $1,950 was reasonable. 

9. It follows that what I have taken to be the objections of the appellant are not sustained.