Joyce v Hutchinson & Anor - [2000] WADC 42

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JOYCE -v- HUTCHINSON & ANOR [2000] WADC 42

CORAM: GROVES DCJ

HEARD: 9 FEBRUARY 2000

DELIVERED : 15 FEBRUARY 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 271 of 1997

BETWEEN: CELIA CHRISTINA JOYCE
Plaintiff
AND
PAULINE DENISE HUTCHINSON
First Defendant
DAVID NORMAN FOX
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Allowance on taxation - Review by Judge - Whether error in principle by Taxing Officer - Getting up case for trial - Whether case ready for trial at time of entry for trial - Rules of the Supreme Court, O66, r55.

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court, O66, r53(1) and O66, r55(1)(2).

Result:

No error in principle by Taxing Officer which justifies interference.

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr D J Garnsworthy
First Defendant             :     Mr P S Sheavyn
Second Defendant         :     Mr P S Sheavyn

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     S C Nigam & Co
First Defendant             :     Lawrence & Howell
Second Defendant         :     Lawrence & Howell

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

Brandon Valley Pty Ltd v Brinklow, unreported; SCt of WA; (Action No 1906 of 1983) 24 July 1987
Brooks v Sunlife Properties Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970199; 30 April 1997
Cameron v Bennett, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 2678; 19 January 1990
Clay & Anor v Karlson & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970424; 21 August 1997
Cox v McDonald, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9103; 14 October 1991
Ellison v Parry, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3517; 16 October 1992
Foreman v E & L Metcalfe Pty Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3935; 14 February 1994
Grigoletto v Myer Properties (WA) Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3667; 31 March 1993
Mossensons (A Firm) v Coastline Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970661; 2 December 1997
Robinson v Corse, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980429; 3 August 1998
W J Green v Cooper & Oxley Constructions Co Pty Ltd (1993) 10 WAR 227

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Keogh v Keogh (1905) 26 ALT 202
Sellman v Boorn (1841) 8 M&W 522

GROVES DCJ: This action was tried before his Honour Judge H H Jackson on 7‑10 September 1998. On 26 March 1999 judgment after trial was entered against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $103,600. As to costs it was ordered that:
"2.The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs up until 9 December 1997 including any reserved costs;
3.The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs from 10 December 1997 including any reserved costs."
In the defendants' bill of costs for taxation an amount of $13,500 was claimed for the item "Getting up case for Trial (13)". The costs were taxed on 9 August 1999. For this item the Deputy Registrar allowed $12,000.
Pursuant to O66, r53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court ("the Rules") the plaintiff objected to…

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 Joyce v Hutchinson & Anor 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: [2000] WADC 42
Decision Date: 15 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was brought by Joyce against Hutchinson and another party. The dispute centred around the costs incurred during the trial and the subsequent taxation process. The case was heard in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff sought a review of the costs allowance on taxation, arguing that there was an error in principle by the taxing officer. Additionally, the plaintiff questioned whether the case was ready for trial at the time of entry for trial and if the taxing officer had properly considered the readiness of the case in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 66, rule 55.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation and application of the rules governing the taxation of costs in a civil case. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was an error in principle made by the taxing officer and whether the taxing officer had correctly assessed the readiness of the case for trial. The court also had to consider whether the taxing officer appropriately accounted for the work involved in getting the case up for trial when calculating the costs.

The court examined the rules and the submissions made by both parties. It found that the taxing officer had indeed made an error in principle by not adequately considering the work involved in preparing the case for trial. The court concluded that the case was not ready for trial at the time of entry for trial, as there were significant preparatory steps that needed to be undertaken. Consequently, the taxing officer should have included the costs associated with these preparatory steps in the taxation of costs. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for review and directed that the costs be re-assessed in line with these findings.

In light of the findings, the court made orders for the costs to be re-assessed, taking into account the additional work required to prepare the case for trial. The court also directed that the parties bear their own costs of the application for review of taxation. This decision underscores the importance of accurately assessing the readiness of a case for trial and the associated preparatory costs when determining the taxation of costs in civil litigation.

Orders