KEZIC -v- ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC [2015] WASCA 182 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 182 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:20/2015	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	18/09/15
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Stay of costs orders against the appellant lifted
Category:	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

HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 18 SEPTEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 20 of 2015

CACV 21 of 2015

BETWEEN : ROSARIA KEZIC

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).

In the case of Kezic v St John of God Health Care Inc, the appellant, Kezic, sought judicial review of a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal of Western Australia, which had determined that Kezic was unfit to practise as a medical practitioner. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the costs orders made against Kezic should be stayed. The appellant contended that the costs orders were unjust and should be lifted. The legal issues before the Court were whether the orders should be stayed and, if so, on what basis.

The Court considered whether the orders were unjust in the circumstances of the case. It noted that the appellant's conduct had been egregious, including making false and misleading statements to the Tribunal and engaging in a campaign of harassment against the Tribunal members. However, the Court also noted that the appellant had made a genuine and effective apology to the Tribunal members, which had been accepted. The Court held that the costs orders should be stayed, as they were unjust in the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the appellant's conduct had been egregious, but that the appellant had made a genuine and effective apology, which had been accepted by the Tribunal members.

The Court's decision was based on a consideration of the appellant's conduct and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the costs orders were unjust in the circumstances of the case, and that they should be stayed. The Court noted that the appellant's conduct had been egregious, but that the appellant had made a genuine and effective apology, which had been accepted by the Tribunal members. The Court held that the costs orders should be stayed, as they were unjust in the circumstances of the case.

The Court lifted the stay of the costs orders against the appellant, Kezic. The Court held that the costs orders were unjust in the circumstances of the case, and that they should be stayed. The Court noted that the appellant's conduct had been egregious, but that the appellant had made a genuine and effective apology, which had been accepted by the Tribunal members. The Court held that the costs orders should be stayed, as they were unjust in the circumstances of the case.

Kezic v St John of God Health Care Inc

KEZIC -v- ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC [2015] WASCA 182 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established