Kezic v St John of God Health Care Inc
[2015] WASCA 182 (S)
•18 SEPTEMBER 2015
KEZIC -v- ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC [2015] WASCA 182 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 182 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:20/2015 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | NEWNES JA MURPHY JA | 18/09/15 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Stay of costs orders against the appellant lifted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROSARIA KEZIC ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC |
Catchwords: | Costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 6 (S) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KEZIC -v- ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC [2015] WASCA 182 (S) CORAM : NEWNES JA
- MURPHY JA
- CACV 21 of 2015
- Appellant
AND
ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : STONE DCJ
Citation : KEZIC -v- ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC [2014] WADC 169
File No : APP 44 of 2014, APP 55 of 2014
Catchwords:
Costs - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Stay of costs orders against the appellant lifted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr R D McCabe
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Kott Gunning
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 6 (S)
1 NEWNES & MURPHY JJA: These reasons deal with the question of costs.
2 On 4 September 2015, the court dismissed the appellant's applications for leave to appeal in, relevantly, these two matters. Whilst the appellant was provided reasons in advance in accordance with practice direction 8.1, the appellant did not attend court on 4 September 2015 when the reasons were delivered, and final orders were to be made. She informed the court beforehand that she would not be attending because she was ill, although no medical certificate was provided.
3 Upon delivery of the reasons, the respondent applied for costs in these two matters in which it had appeared. The court made an order for costs but, given the appellant's absence, stayed their operation and gave the appellant an opportunity to file and serve submissions as to why costs orders should not be made against her. The appellant filed seven pages of submissions in opposition to costs orders.
4 In summary, the appellant's arguments are that:
1. she had a right to appeal despite the 'unjust' decision of this court in refusing her leave to appeal;
2. the judiciary operate under a 'hidden law' which is contrary to justice according to law;
3. a costs order would be unfair to her because she is on a disability pension;
4. the respondent allegedly committed certain offences and misconducted itself, thereby disentitling itself to any costs order;
5. the matters upon which she unsuccessfully relied to obtain leave to appeal disclosed why costs should not be ordered against her; and
6. the court's decision in Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd,1 in which the court rejected a submission that there was no power to order costs in these circumstances, is wrong.
5 None of the appellant's arguments has any merit. The first is incorrect. Leave to appeal was required and there was no basis for the grant of leave. The second proceeds (to put it charitably) on a fundamental misconception as to the way in which courts operate. The third is not supported by evidence and in any event, there is no ground for refusing a costs order on that account alone. There is no evidence which could properly support the fourth argument. As to the fifth point, the matters on which the appellant failed in her applications for leave to appeal disclose why costs should be ordered against her, not the opposite. As to the sixth matter, no rational arguments were advanced to suggest that the decision in Bonney was incorrect.
6 Finally, the appellant also sought an oral hearing to present her arguments in opposition to the costs orders. No purpose is, or would have been, served by having an oral hearing.
7 The result is that the appellant should pay the costs of the respondent in the two matters in which it appeared. The formal orders will be in each of CACV 20 and CACV 21 of 2015:
1. The stay referred to in orders 3 and 4 of the orders made on 4 September 2015 is hereby lifted, and the respondent is entitled to enforce the costs order referred to in order 2 of the orders of 4 September 2015.
1Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 6 (S).
0
3
1