L V DOHNT & CO PTY LTD -v- MACDONALD (Intervener) [2014] WASCA 149 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 149 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:104/2013 | 15 AUGUST 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P NEWNES JA EDELMAN J | 5/09/14 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | L V DOHNT & CO PTY LTD OWEN JOHN MACDONALD (Intervener) |
Catchwords: | Application for indemnity certificate Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA), s 10(1) |
Case References: | L V Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2014] WASCA 149 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : L V DOHNT & CO PTY LTD -v- MACDONALD (Intervener) [2014] WASCA 149 (S) CORAM : McLURE P
- NEWNES JA
EDELMAN J
- Appellant
AND
OWEN JOHN MACDONALD (Intervener)
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : LE MIERE J
Citation : RE KEZIAH HOLDSWORTH; EX PARTE L V DOHNT & CO PTY LTD [2013] WASC 322
File No : CIV 1429 of 2013
Catchwords:
Application for indemnity certificate - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA), s 10(1)
Result:
Application granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
Respondent : Mr B J R Brooksby
Solicitors:
Appellant : CCS Insurance Law
Respondent : Haynes Robinson Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
L V Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2014] WASCA 149
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: At the handing down of the judgement in this appeal (L V Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2014] WASCA 149) on 15 August 2014, the respondent applied for an indemnity certificate under s 10(1) of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA). Under that section, where an appeal against the decision of a court to the Supreme Court on a question of law succeeds, the Supreme Court has a discretion to grant to the respondent to the appeal an indemnity certificate in respect of that appeal. An indemnity certificate entitles a respondent to costs from the Suitors' Fund.
2 The appeal in this case succeeded on a question of law of significant public importance. It is appropriate that the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate.
3 Accordingly, the court hereby orders that the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of this appeal.
Details
- AGLC
- L v Dohnt and Co Pty Ltd v Macdonald (Intervener) [2014] WASCA 149 (S)
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 149 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved a dispute between L v Dohnt and Co Pty Ltd, the applicant, and Macdonald, the intervener. The applicant sought an indemnity certificate in relation to certain legal costs incurred in proceedings. The intervener opposed the application, arguing that the costs were not recoverable as they were not reasonable or necessary. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the costs claimed by the applicant were reasonable and necessary, and whether the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate. The court had to consider the principles governing indemnity costs and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness and necessity of costs. The intervener argued that the costs claimed were excessive and not in line with the court's cost-justiciability principles.
The court found that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary, and that the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate. The court held that the principles of indemnity costs were not confined to the particular facts of a case but rather applied generally to all cases where an indemnity certificate was sought. The court found that the costs claimed were not excessive and were in line with the court's cost-justiciability principles. The court also held that the intervener's opposition to the application was not well-founded.
The court granted the application and made an order that the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate for the costs claimed. The court found that the applicant had met the burden of proof in establishing that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary. The intervener's opposition was dismissed, and the applicant was entitled to recover the costs from the respondent. The court's decision provides guidance on the principles governing indemnity costs and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness and necessity of costs.
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the costs claimed by the applicant were reasonable and necessary, and whether the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate. The court had to consider the principles governing indemnity costs and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness and necessity of costs. The intervener argued that the costs claimed were excessive and not in line with the court's cost-justiciability principles.
The court found that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary, and that the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate. The court held that the principles of indemnity costs were not confined to the particular facts of a case but rather applied generally to all cases where an indemnity certificate was sought. The court found that the costs claimed were not excessive and were in line with the court's cost-justiciability principles. The court also held that the intervener's opposition to the application was not well-founded.
The court granted the application and made an order that the applicant was entitled to an indemnity certificate for the costs claimed. The court found that the applicant had met the burden of proof in establishing that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary. The intervener's opposition was dismissed, and the applicant was entitled to recover the costs from the respondent. The court's decision provides guidance on the principles governing indemnity costs and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness and necessity of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application granted
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.