Jack v Huntingford - [2004] WADC 172

JACK -v- HUNTINGFORD [2004] WADC 172

Last Update: 20/08/2004

JACK -v- HUNTINGFORD [2004] WADC 172
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WADC 172
Case No:	CIV:3045/2002	Heard:	NOT APPLICABLE
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN	Delivered:	18/08/2004
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Review unsuccessful
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	NGAIRE ALANA JACK MICHELLE HUNTINGFORD
Catchwords:	Practice Western Australia Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Review of taxation of costs Getting up case for trial and a disbursement Sufficiency of notice
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Robinson v Corse, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980429; 3 August 1998 Clybucca Holdings Pty Ltd v Richard Ferier Gray and Others & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970191; 30 April 1997

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : JACK -v- HUNTINGFORD [2004] WADC 172 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN HEARD : NOT APPLICABLE DELIVERED : 18 AUGUST 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 3045 of 2002 BETWEEN : NGAIRE ALANA JACK

Plaintiff

AND

MICHELLE HUNTINGFORD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia - Review of taxation of costs - Getting up case for trial and a disbursement - Sufficiency of notice

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Review unsuccessful

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr P Kakulas

Defendant : Mr P Momber

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Kakulas & Kakulas

Defendant : Peter Momber

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

Robinson v Corse, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980429; 3 August 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Clybucca Holdings Pty Ltd v Richard Ferier Gray and Others & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970191; 30 April 1997

(Page 3)

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: The plaintiff obtained an order for her costs of the action. The parties have each filed what I take to be notices of objection to determinations made in the course of taxing claims made by the plaintiff in her bill of costs.

2 Before I deal the substance of either of the notices I will note that it is some time since each of the notices were lodged and that the plaintiff indicated that further grounds of objections would be presented at review. Whether a party is entitled to found review by grounds provided at review is a matter that I do not presently need to reflect upon. The important consideration is that the reviews have been languishing as I imagined that the plaintiff would seek to have the process listed for hearing. As she has not done so and as some considerable time has elapsed I see no reason not to proceed to conduct the review. Perhaps it is appropriate that I would add that upon receipt of an objection it is my practice to consider whether I would require the parties to attend on review or whether I will leave it for the…

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 Jack v Huntingford

Details

AGLC: Jack v Huntingford [2004] WADC 172
Case: [2004] WADC 172
Decision Date: 18 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Jack, the plaintiff, and Huntingford, the defendant, with the primary dispute centring around the taxation of costs incurred during the legal proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Jack sought a review of the taxation of costs that were awarded against him in the proceedings, specifically challenging the inclusion of a disbursement for a "getting up" case for trial and questioning the sufficiency of the notice provided regarding the costs.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether the disbursement for a "getting up" case for trial was appropriately included in the costs and if the notice provided was sufficient to allow Jack to adequately respond to the taxation of costs. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had a valid basis for his objections to the taxation of costs and if the defendant had acted within the bounds of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

In examining the evidence and submissions, the court found that the disbursement for a "getting up" case for trial was properly included as it was a necessary expense incurred during the litigation process. Furthermore, the court concluded that the notice provided to Jack was sufficient, as it clearly outlined the costs and provided him with an opportunity to object. Consequently, the court dismissed Jack's application for review of the taxation of costs, finding that his objections were not well-founded. The court held that the defendant had complied with the relevant rules and procedures, and thus, the taxation of costs was upheld as assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Review unsuccessful

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.