Juris COR Group Pty Ltd v Price - [2020] WASC 308

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   JURIS COR GROUP PTY LTD -v- PRICE [2020] WASC 308
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   28 AUGUST 2020
FILE NO/S:   LPA 8 of 2019
BETWEEN:   JURIS COR GROUP PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
RICHARD PRICE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Review of taxation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 260, s 261, s 267, s 268, s 301, s 302
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 53, O 66 r 54, O 66 r 55

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Juris Cor Legal
Respondent	:	Integra Legal

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

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
Caratti v Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 84; (2016) 50 WAR 84
City of Belmont v Saldanha [No 2] [2018] WASC 278
Farrar (formerly Sweeney) v Julia Armitage [2015] QCA 289
Gregg Lawyers Pty Ltd v Viki Maree Farrar (formerly Sweeney) [2014] QDC 194
LM v K Lawyers [No 2] [2015] WASC 245
Mathieson Nominees Pty Ltd v AJH Lawyers [2013] VSC 325
Nicholson Clement Lawyers v Hewson [2014] WASC 416
Shire of Katanning v Bride [No 5] [2014] WASC 470
The Australasian Lawyers Group Pty Ltd t/as Butlers Barristers & Solicitors v Morgan [2018] WASC 69

HILL J:

On 28 February 2020, a registrar acting as a taxing officer assessed the costs the subject of the respondent's bill of costs and allowed it in the sum of $18,303.76.
On 13 March 2020, the applicant filed a request to review the taxation of the bill of costs, pursuant to O 66 r 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Rules). Specifically, the applicant seeks to review:
(a)the finding that the respondent complied with his ongoing obligation of disclosure pursuant to s 267 of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (Act); and
(b)items 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 25 and 27 of the respondent's bill of costs.
The parties agreed that the application be determined on the papers.
For the reasons set out below, while I consider the taxing officer made an error in principle in considering whether s 267 of the Act applied to the retainer of the respondent, no order needs to be made to rectify this error. In respect of the remaining items, no error of principle has been identified. Accordingly, the application should be dismissed.

Legal Principles on review of taxation

The legal principles governing a review of taxation were summarised by Vaughan J in City of Belmont v Saldanha [No 2] as follows:[1]
[1] City of Belmont v Saldanha [No 2] [2018] WASC 278 [30] - [43].
Order 66 r 32 sets out the rules concerning taxation of costs. It provides that where bills of costs are to be taxed, the bill is to be taxed,…

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 Juris COR Group Pty Ltd v Price 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: [2020] WASC 308
Decision Date: 28 AUGUST 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Juris COR Group Pty Ltd v Price, the parties involved were Juris COR Group Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Price, the defendant. The dispute arose from a taxation assessment issued to Juris COR Group Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The plaintiff sought a review of the taxation assessment, challenging its correctness and the associated costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a review of the taxation assessment and the associated costs. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had a valid basis for the review and if the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the case's facts were sufficiently unique to warrant a departure from the standard approach to costs in taxation reviews.

The court found that the plaintiff's challenge to the taxation assessment had merit, as the assessment appeared to be incorrect. However, the court also noted that the costs claimed by the plaintiff were excessive. The court emphasised that the review of taxation should not be used as a tool for litigating unrelated disputes or for making claims that were not directly related to the taxation issue at hand. The court held that while the plaintiff was entitled to a review of the taxation assessment, the costs claimed were not justified as they turned on their own facts and were not reasonable or necessary.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application for a review of the taxation assessment be granted, but the costs claimed by the plaintiff were to be reduced significantly. The court set aside the original costs order and directed the parties to negotiate and agree on a reasonable costs order within a specified timeframe. If the parties could not reach an agreement, the matter would be referred back to the court for further determination.

Orders