Jackson v Chrisp [No 2] - [2013] WADC 164

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JACKSON -v- CHRISP [No 2] [2013] WADC 164

CORAM: STEVENSON DCJ

HEARD: 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

DELIVERED : 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

PUBLISHED : 29 OCTOBER 2013

FILE NO/S: APP 74 of 2010

BETWEEN: GEORGE NEVILLE JACKSON
Appellant
AND
DANIEL LEE CHRISP
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application to set aside certificate of taxation - Inherent jurisdiction - Implied jurisdiction - Order 66 r 53, r 55 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 - Discretionary considerations - Taxation of costs general principles - No order

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 s 6
Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 53, r 55

Result:

Application to set aside certificate of taxation refused
The appellant pay the respondent's costs, and any reserved costs, to be taxed unless agreed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D J Garnsworthy
Respondent: Mr B P Wheatley

Solicitors:

Appellant: Garnsworthy
Respondent: Mossensons

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

Jackson v Chrisp [2011] WADC 38
Jackson v Chrisp [2012] WASCA 158
Jackson v Chrisp [2013] WADC 74
Monitronix Ltd v Michael & Anor (1992) 7 WAR 197
Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey & Ors (2001) 21 WAR 209
Pelechowski v The Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19
Pryles & Defteros (a firm) v Green [1999] WASC 34; (1999) 20 WAR 541
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155
Re, Landsal Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Rei Building Society, Now the Co-operative Building Society of South Australia [1993] FCA 121

STEVENSON DCJ: [This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 25 September 2013 and has been edited from the transcript.]
I have had the opportunity to consider the material before the court, including each party's written outline of submissions, before today. I have also been assisted by full oral submissions from counsel today. I reserve the right to edit, vary and, if necessary, amend these reasons for decision at any time in the future should the need arise.
The application before the court is a chamber summons filed by the appellant, Mr Jackson, in District Court APP 74 of 2010 on 8 August 2013. The chamber summons seeks an order setting aside the 'allocatur costs in the signed certificate of taxation dated 5 October 2012' (the certificate of taxation). The appellant also seeks an order that there be no order as to costs in respect of the chamber summons.
I have had the opportunity to read the reasons for decision of her Honour Judge Wager (Jackson v Chrisp [2011] WADC 38), delivered on 4 March 2011 and published on 11 March 2011. The bill of costs, which was taxed and which is the subject of the chamber summons before the court today, arose out of an appeal from the Magistrates Court heard by her Honour Judge Wager. At the same time, Wager DCJ also heard District Court APP 73 of 2010, which arose out of the same…

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 Jackson v Chrisp [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Chrisp [No 2] [2013] WADC 164
Case: [2013] WADC 164
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jackson v Chrisp [No 2] arose before the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the context of an application by the plaintiff, Jackson, to set aside a certificate of taxation issued by the defendant, Chrisp, who was the taxing master. Jackson sought to challenge the amount of taxation assessed for the costs of the proceedings, arguing that the taxation was excessive and not in accordance with the relevant rules and principles. The dispute centred around the appropriateness of the taxation and the procedural correctness of the taxing master's actions.

The court was required to determine whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to review and potentially set aside the taxing master's certificate. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether Order 66, rules 53 and 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, provided any implied jurisdiction to review the taxation. The court also had to examine the discretionary considerations involved in such a review and the general principles governing the taxation of costs.

The court held that it did not have the inherent jurisdiction to review the taxing master's certificate, as this was a matter within the exclusive domain of the taxing master's statutory role. The court further found that Order 66, rules 53 and 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 did not confer any implied jurisdiction to review the taxation. The discretionary considerations and the general principles governing the taxation of costs did not support a review in the absence of a statutory basis. Therefore, the application to set aside the certificate of taxation was dismissed.

In light of the findings, the Supreme Court made no order to set aside the certificate of taxation issued by the taxing master. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing the taxation of costs and the limited role of the court in reviewing such decisions.

Orders