Laro-Bashford v Mihos - [2016] VSC 77

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COSTS COURT

S CI 2015 4518

ADAM LARO-BASHFORD & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
GEORGE MIHOS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GOURLAY JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 February 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 March 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Laro-Bashford & Ors v Mihos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 77

---

DECISIONS AND REASONS

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of costs by Judicial Registrar pursuant to Order 63.56.2 – Costs registrar’s exercise of discretion not to reduce costs pursuant to Order 63.85.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Colonna	MST Lawyers
For the Defendant	In person

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

On 26 February 2016 I heard this application. I reserved my decision and now publish my decision and reasons.

The Respondent applied for a review, pursuant to Order 63.56(2), of taxation orders made by a costs registrar on 26 November 2015 that the costs of the applicants are taxed and allowed in the sum of $95,063.50. The basis of the application for review is that the costs registrar failed to apply the ordinary meaning to Order 63.85 (‘the Rule’) and disallow costs to the solicitor filing the bill of costs for preparing the bill for taxation and for attending the taxation as the bill WAS reduced by 15% or more. Order 63.56.2 requires the party seeking to review an order made by the Costs Court constituted by a costs registrar to file A Notice stating the order made in respect to each item in the bill of costs that the party objects to, and to state specifically and concisely the grounds of objection to that order, and the order sought in its place. The Notice of review complies with that rule.

The items sought to be reviewed are items 555 to 565, excluding items 557 and 564, totalling $11,219.04. The respondent in his notice of review argues that as the costs assessed up to item 554 had been reduced by $25,130.13, which is 23.10% of the total claimed of $108,770.05 to that point in the bill, he was entitled to have Order 63.85 applied in his favour and the applicant should be deprived of the charges in the bill that relate to the costs of the taxation. A further sum of $2,277.56 was taxed off items 555 and 556 to make the total reduction of the bill 23.08%. The review seeks further reductions as follows:

Item Amount claimed Amount allowed Amount sought Comment

555 $8,415.20 $6,539.20 00.00 Order 63.85 application preparation of the bill

556 $22.88 $18.92 00.00 Preparation of the bill

558 $53.60 $53.60 00.00 “filing the bill for taxation”
Order 63.85

559 $35.30 $35.30 00.00 “filing the bill for taxation”
Order 63.85

560 $296.50 $296.50 00.00 “filing the bill for taxation”
Order 63.85

561 $30.40 $30.40 00.00 “filing the bill for taxation”
Order 63.85

562 $15.04 $15.04 00.00 “filing the bill for taxation”
Order 63.85

563 $150.08 $150.08 00.00 Preparation for taxation

565 $340.00 $4,080.00 00.00

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.

Continue reading Laro-Bashford v Mihos

Details

AGLC: Laro-Bashford v Mihos [2016] VSC 77
Case: [2016] VSC 77
Decision Date: 7 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Laro-Bashford v Mihos involved a dispute between the parties regarding the review of costs ordered by a Judicial Registrar. The matter was a review of costs pursuant to Order 63.56.2, where the Registrar had exercised their discretion under Order 63.85 not to reduce the costs. The respondent sought a review of this decision, arguing that the Registrar had improperly exercised their discretion.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had erred in their exercise of discretion when deciding not to reduce the costs. The respondent contended that the Registrar had failed to consider relevant factors, and as a result, the decision should be reviewed. The court needed to determine if the Registrar's decision was legally sound and if it complied with the relevant procedural rules.

The court found that the Registrar had exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and had considered all relevant factors. The court held that the Registrar was not required to provide detailed reasons for not reducing the costs, as long as the decision was not affected by error or procedural irregularity. The respondent's application for review was dismissed, and the Registrar's decision to not reduce the costs was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court in this case. The decision underscores the importance of the Judicial Registrar's discretion in cost matters and the limited scope for review by the court in such cases.

Orders