James Boyd Norman v Sandra Darlene Spiers - [2005] ACTCA 14

JAMES BOYD NORMAN v SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
[2005] ACTCA 14 (13 April 2005)

COSTS – application for certificate under Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 – whether applicable to appeals from single judge of Supreme Court to Court of Appeal.

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, ss 6(1), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(h)
Supreme Court Amendment Act 2001 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E(1)
Practice Direction No 10/1981 (1981-82) 38 ACTR 27

Norman v Spiers [2004] ACTCA 25
Phipson Nominees Pty Ltd v French (1989) 91 ALR 509

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No ACTCA 26-2004
No SC 624 of 2002

Judges: Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 13 April 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No ACTCA 26-2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No SC 624 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMES BOYD NORMAN
Appellant

AND:SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
Respondent

RULING

Judges:  Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Date:  13 April 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT RULES THAT:

there is no jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory to entertain an application for a costs certificate.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No ACTCA 26-2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No SC 624 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMES BOYD NORMAN
Appellant

AND:SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Date:  13 April 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR RULING

THE COURT:

This Court on 10 December 2004 delivered judgment in this appeal, upholding the appeal for the purposes of reducing the amount of the judgment from $232,452.10 to $116, 226.15, and ordering that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. The respondent had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 24 December 2001 when her vehicle had come into collision with a police car being driven on official duty by the appellant. The primary judge had found negligence, and awarded damages with no finding of contributory negligence. Although primary liability was challenged on the appeal, the Court found that the appellant had been negligent, but that there had been contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, and so upheld the appeal and reduced the damages: Norman v Spiers [2004] ACTCA 25.

The respondent has made application for a costs certificate pursuant to s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) (“the Costs Act”), which provides that -

Subject to this Act, where a Federal appeal succeeds on a question of law, the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of a respondent to the appeal, grant to the respondent a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.

The application was made before Crispin P, who on 2 February 2005 directed that written submissions be filed and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read James Boyd Norman v Sandra Darlene Spiers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] ACTCA 14
Decision Date: 13 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory, James Boyd Norman was the appellant and Sandra Darlene Spiers was the respondent. The dispute concerned an application by the respondent for a costs certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) following an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court had previously heard an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had awarded damages to the respondent for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. While the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of negligence, it found contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, thereby reducing the quantum of damages awarded.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 applied to an appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Court of Appeal of that Territory. Specifically, the Court had to determine if such an appeal fell within the definition of a "Federal appeal" as defined in the Act, particularly in light of the establishment of the Court of Appeal under the Supreme Court Amendment Act 2001 (ACT).

The Court reasoned that prior to the establishment of the Court of Appeal, appeals from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory lay to the Federal Court of Australia, and such appeals were clearly defined as "Federal appeals" under the Act. However, the Court concluded that an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory did not constitute an appeal "to the Supreme Court of a Territory from a judgment of another court of that Territory" as contemplated by the Act. Instead, it was an appeal to an appellate division of the Supreme Court itself, rather than an appeal from a separate court. The Court found it would be artificial to interpret the Act in a way that would encompass such internal appellate proceedings within the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the Court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application for a costs certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.

Orders