Larussa v Carr
[2019] WASCA 34
•24 JANUARY 2019
| JURISDICTION | : | SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
| CITATION | : | LARUSSA -v- ANNA CARR as administratrix of the estate of GIUSEPPE LARUSSA [2019] WASCA 34 |
| CORAM | : BUSS P |
MURPHY JA
BEECH JA
| HEARD | : 24 JANUARY 2019 | ||
| DELIVERED | : 24 JANUARY 2019 | ||
| PUBLISHED | : 20 FEBRUARY 2019 | ||
| FILE NO/S |
| ||
| BETWEEN | : TONY LARUSSA |
Appellant
AND
ANNA CARR as administratrix of the estate of
GIUSEPPE LARUSSA
Respondent
[2019] WASCA 34
ON APPEAL FROM:
| For File No | : | CACV 33 of 2018 |
| Jurisdiction | : | SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
| Coram | : TOTTLE J | ||
| Citation |
| ||
| File Number |
| ||
| Catchwords: |
Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Whether any error in principle - Whether Registrar erred in principle in proceeding with taxation in the absence of proper particulars
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 rr 42, 53, 54, 55
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | F A Stanton |
Respondent : D Singh
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Corporate Counsel Lawyers |
Respondent : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
[2019] WASCA 34
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Clay v Karlson (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970424, 21 August 1997)
Larussa v Carr [2016] WASC 332
Larussa v Carr [2016] WASC 332 (S)
Larussa v Carr [No 2] [2018] WASC 76
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
REASONS OF THE COURT:
This appeal concerns whether the registrar who taxed a bill of costs made an error in principle. The primary judge gave ex tempore reasons in holding that no error in principle had been made.[1]
[1] Larussa v Carr [No 2] [2018] WASC 76 (primary decision).
At the hearing of the appeal from the primary decision, we refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, with reasons to be published later. These are our reasons. In short, like the primary judge, we considered that the appellant failed to demonstrate an error in principle.
Background
On 14 October 2016, Chaney J dismissed the proceedings commenced by the appellant.[2] On 13 January 2017, his Honour ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.[3]
[2] Larussa v Carr [2016] WASC 332.
[3] Larussa v Carr [2016] WASC 332 (S).
On 30 May 2017, the respondent filed and served a draft bill of costs.[4] The draft bill of costs included, relevantly, items 3, 5, 13, 14 and 15. Those items may be summarised as follows.
[4] BAB 7 - 10.
Item 3 of the bill was dated 8 March 2016 and claimed $4,158.00 in respect of '[c]ost [sic] thrown away as a result of further amended defence of the First Defendant pursuant to orders of Chaney J dated 21/01/2016'.[5] Item 5 claimed $99, the full allowance under the scale, for an amended memorandum of appearance. Item 13 claimed $9,845.55 in discovery and inspection costs in respect of various dates. Item 14 concerned conferences between counsel and instructing practitioner on various dates, in the amount of $24,263.80. Item 15 claimed $58,080.00 for the preparation of the case for trial on various dates.[6] The total amount claimed in the bill was $176,713.39.[7]
[5] BAB 8.
[6] BAB 8.
[7] BAB 9.
On 19 September 2017, Registrar Whitby ordered that the respondent file and serve schedules in relation to items 3, 13, 14 and 15.[8]
[8] BAB 11.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
The respondent's schedule is set out below:[9]
[9] GAB 23 - 26.
No. Item Amount
1 3 Costs thrown away as a result of further amended $4,158.00 defence of First Defendant pursuant to Orders of Chaney (Counsel - J dated 21/1/2016 10.8 hours) 2 13 Discovery & Inspection $9,845.35 Details: The Defendant's amended list of documents dated 13/7/2016 verified by affidavit consisted of 130 discoverable documents which were collated and provided to the Plaintiff's solicitors for inspection. Numerous documents consisting of communications between the First Defendant and her solicitors, Counsel, and third parties, instructions, witness statements, proofs of evidence, notes, drafts, memoranda, advice and opinions prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining advice over which privilege was claimed were made [available] subject of a claim of legal professional privilege. A number of the discovered documents were also discovered in redacted form on the basis of legal professional privilege.
The Plaintiff's list of documents consisted of 61 discoverable documents of which one was redacted. Legal professional privilege was also claimed over various other documents.
Inspection was simultaneously provided by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant and the First Defendant to the Plaintiff on 16/6/2016 at the First Defendant's solicitors['] office. Copies of all documents discovered were made by both parties' respective solicitors.
Subsequently a book of documents incorporating documents from both lists containing documents in excess of 1,000 pages was prepared after extensive conferral between the respective solicitors.
Total amounted Claimed: $9,845.455 Breakdown: Counsel - 5.25 hours at $385.00 6 hours at $396.00 SP - 11.1 hours at $473.00
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
3 14 Conferences between Counsel and instructing $24,263.60 Practitioner Details: Conferences took place between the instructing solicitor and Counsel (at times also involving the attendance of the First Defendant) on numerous occasions between 18/5/2015 to 29/7/2015, both face to face and via telephone for the purposes of providing instructions, settling documents, preparing for various interlocutory hearings, proofing witnesses, discovery, discussing strategy for interlocutory and trial hearings, discussing evidence, required witnesses, settlement offers, coroner court documents and preparation for interlocutory and trial; hearings.
Breakdown: Total number of hours spent by each of
Counsel and Senior Practitioner - 27.8 hours
Counsel - 17.9 hours at $396.00
9.9 hours at $385.00
Senior Practitioner - 17.9 hours at $484.00
9.9 hours at $473.00
4 15 Preparation of case for trial $58,080.00 Time spent by Counsel and SP in preparing case for trial including taking instructions, preparing of affidavits, witness statements, opening statements, researching legal issues, reviewing legal issues, reviewing law, reviewing evidence, preparing proofs of evidence, preparing witness statements, preparing chronologies, reviewing instructions and documents, interviewing witnesses, inspection of documents held by Coroner, preparing subpoenas, preparing cross-examination of witnesses, conferral with opposing solicitors and counsel, providing advice to the client. Time spent by SP and Counsel: in excess of 200 hours but claim limited to maximum allowed on scale.
On 6 November 2017, Registrar Whitby taxed the bill of costs and allowed the sum of $152,545.20. At the conclusion of the taxation, counsel for the appellant requested time to consider any objections before the registrar signed the certification of taxation.[10]
[10] Primary decision [1].
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
On 14 November 2017, the appellant objected to items 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the bill of costs.[11] The table of objections was as follows:[12]
[11] BAB 12 - 14.[12] BAB 13 - 14.
Item Extent Objection Ground Notes number
3 Part Error in Lack of detail hampered proper or principle adequate assessment.
Particulars ordered not given appropriately. In absence of detail it is difficult to say what was wasted. The taxing officer erred in not sufficiently taking into account the lack of detail in the particulars.
Further the assessment ought not to have only been made on information before the Court in the absence of adequate particulars.
5 Part Error in Simple document with a minor principle amendment. To allow the full scale allowance is an error in principle when that decision was not supported by the document before the taxing officer.
13 Part Error in
Item not divided between
principle
discovery and inspection having effect that allocation lacked precision between the two items.
Information supplied did not
permit of an adequate allowance.
Therefore the allowance failed to give adequate weight to the lack of information and that failure amounts to an error in principle.
Further the assessment ought not to have only been made on information before the Court in the absence of adequate particulars.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
14 Part Error in Receiving party had been directed to principle give particulars of the item but failed
to properly do so.As a result the taxing officer was not appropriately able to make an assessment based only on information
put before the Court.Lack of particulars also had the result that conferences of a nature as between lawyer and client could not be excluded. The taxing officer could not know whether and when the party was simply receiving advice or considering negotiations. Neither of which type of conference results in recovery for the receiving party. The allowance made does not adequately reflect the difficulties faced by the taxing officer and is therefore an error in principle. (emphasis added)
The registrar published reasons on her review of the objections.[13]
[13] Registrar's review of taxation, BAB 15 - 18.The registrar characterised the essence of each objection as being that there was insufficient information in support of each item to allow the registrar to make an appropriate assessment.[14] In dismissing the objections, the registrar made the following findings:[15]
In my view, the objections raised by the [appellant] go to the quantum allowed at taxation, rather than to errors of principle and ought to be dismissed on that basis.
In any event, the proposition put by the [appellant] that there was insufficient information before me to appropriately make an assessment in the amount that I did for each item is rejected. I received submissions from both parties in relation to each item in the Bill of Costs at the hearing of the taxation. Where I was of the view that there was insufficient information to support the amount claimed, I taxed off an amount at that item to reflect that.
[14] Registrar's review of taxation [5], BAB 17.
[15] Registrar's review of taxation [7] - [8], BAB 17.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
The appellant applied for a review of the registrar's decision.[16]
[16] BAB 19 - 20.It is convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (the Rules), and applicable legal principles, before turning to the primary decision.
Legal principles
Order 66 of the Rules deals with costs. The following rules of that order are relevant to taxations of bills of costs:
42. Bills of costs, content of
(1) A bill of costs for taxation shall be prepared so as to
show clearly -
(a) items consecutively numbered, together with a reference to the item in the scale to which the item in the bill relates; and (b) dates of items (specifying years, months and days); and (c) where necessary, particulars of the services charged for; and
(d) disbursements; and (e) professional charges.
(2) Professional charges and disbursements shall be entered in separate columns and each column shall be added before the bill is filed. 53. Party dissatisfied with taxation may object and apply for review
(1)
A party who contends that the taxing officer has made an error in principle in allowing or disallowing any item or part of an item in a bill of costs taxed by him may, at any time before a certificate of taxation dealing finally with that item is signed, or at such earlier time as may, in any case, be fixed by the taxing officer -
(a)
deliver to the other party interested in the allowance or disallowance and carry in before the taxing officer, an objection in writing to the allowance or disallowance specifying in
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
the objection by a list, in a short and concise form, the items or parts of items objected to, and the grounds and reasons for the objections; and
(b)
thereupon apply to the taxing officer to review the taxation in respect of those items or parts.
(2) Pending the consideration and determination of the objection, the taxing officer may if he thinks fit issue a certificate of taxation for or on account of the remainder or of part of the bill of costs. Any further certificate which may be necessary shall be issued by the taxing officer after his decision upon the objections. 54. Review of taxation by taxing officer
(1) Upon an application under rule 53 to review the taxation, the taxing officer shall reconsider and review his taxation in relation to the objections, and he may, if he thinks fit, receive further evidence in respect of the objections. (2) If so required by a party, the taxing officer shall state in his certificate of taxation or by reference to the objection, the ground and reason of his decision on the objection, and any special facts or circumstances relating to his decision. (3) The taxing officer may tax the costs of the objections and add them to or deduct them from, any sum payable by or to a party to the taxation. (4) Except as provided by this rule, the taxing officer shall not, after a certificate of taxation is signed, review his taxation or amend his certificate, except to correct a clerical or manifest error before payment or process issued for recovery of the costs. (5) If a party fails to appear on the taxation the taxing officer may, upon an application in that behalf made in writing within 7 days, set aside or vary his certificate of taxation on such terms as he thinks just. 55. Review of taxation by judge
(1)
If a party is dissatisfied with the certificate of the taxing officer as to any item or part of an item objected to under rule 53 of this Order, he may, within 14 days from the date of the certificate, or such other time as the Court, or the taxing officer at the time he signs his
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
certificate, allows, apply to a judge in chambers for an order to review the taxation as to that item or part of an item.
(2) The judge, if of opinion that the taxing officer has made an error in principle, may thereupon make such order to rectify the error as the judge thinks just. (3) The certificate of the taxing officer is final and conclusive as to all matters which have not been objected to in accordance with these rules. (emphasis added)
The appellant emphasises the requirement in r 42(1)(c) that a bill of costs for taxation show, where necessary, particulars of the services charged for.
It can be seen, from the terms of r 55(2), that the judge's power to interfere with a certificate of a taxing officer is founded on the judge's conclusion that the taxing officer has made an error in principle. In Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd,[17] Murphy JA (with whom McLure P and Newnes JA agreed) reviewed the authorities concerning errors in principle with respect to taxation of costs. For present purposes, it is sufficient to refer to the following observations:[18]
[17] Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155.
[18] Rankilor [75] - [78].
Order 66 r 53 and O 66 r 55 refer to an 'error in principle'. In this context, errors in principle have been contrasted with questions of mere quantum. In Re Catlin [1854] 18 Beav 508 [52 ER 200], Sir John Romilly said:
The petition is to review the taxation made by the Taxing Master of a bill of costs delivered by Mr Catlin, and complaining of the disallowance of various items. It is admitted, on both sides, that this Court can only be called upon to determine on the propriety of allowing or disallowing items which involve some principle, and not where a question only of quantum arises. (Alsop v Lord Oxford 1 Myl & K 564.)
Nevertheless, errors in principle may be made both in determining whether an item should be allowed and in determining how much should be allowed: Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178, 183; Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (628).
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
An error in principle may be inferred from a decision of the taxing officer if the result is such that the discretion appears not to have been exercised at all, or where it has been exercised in a manner that is manifestly wrong: Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (628 - 629).
In Mossensons (a firm) v Coastline Associates, Ipp J (Pidgeon J agreeing) observed (9 - 10):
The point is that there must be an error in principle before a judge will carry out a review under O 66 r 55. Although it is possible for an error in principle to be made in regard to the quantum allowed in respect of a particular item, that is generally regarded as unusual. In my opinion, an error in principle on this basis could only be established if it is shown that no taxing officer, acting reasonably, could ever have taxed the particular item in the amount in question.
Primary decision
The judge set out the background, relevant rules and the principles stated in Rankilor.
His Honour identified that the appellant's submissions to him raised two arguments. First, they alleged that the registrar had made a 'patent error of law' in holding that the appellant's objections went to quantum rather than to errors in principle.[19] Secondly, it was put that the bill and particulars provided by the schedule did not provide the registrar with an adequate basis to make a proper determination, such that progressing with the taxation involved an error in principle.[20]
[19] Primary decision [7].
[20] Primary decision [8].
As to the first argument, the primary judge held that the registrar's remarks at [7] of her reasons[21] are not properly understood as a statement that a contention about quantum can never amount to an error in principle, but rather that, in the circumstances of this case, the appellant's contention did not do so.[22]
[21] Set out above at [11].
[22] Primary decision [9].
His Honour held that the second argument failed to take adequate account of the following three factors,[23] namely that the registrar:
[23] Primary decision [10]. 24 Primary decision [11].
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
[25] Primary decision [12].
[26] Primary decision [13].
(1) had the court file in front of her during the taxation and was capable of making an assessment of the amount of work involved in each stage of the litigation process by reference to the documents on the court file;24 (2) had the benefit of the parties' submissions at the taxation;[25] and (3) brought her own experience to the taxation.[26]
Taking those factors into account, together with the contents of the bill and the schedules, in the view of the primary judge the registrar had a sufficient basis upon which to exercise her discretion as to whether each item should be allowed, reduced or disallowed.[27] Accordingly, the judge dismissed the appellant's application.[28]
[27] Primary decision [13].
[28] Primary decision [14].
Grounds of appeal
There are six grounds of appeal, to the following effect:
(1)
The primary judge erred in law in deciding that the registrar had correctly held that the appellant's objections went only to quantum;
(2)
The primary judge should have held that the registrar made an error in principle for the purposes of O 66 r 53 in proceeding to tax the bill of costs when there was insufficient evidence to make an informed assessment of whether those costs were justifiable and reasonable;
(3)
The primary judge should have held that that registrar ought not to have proceeded with the taxation until the respondent had provided the relevant information which the appellant had requested, such approach making it impossible for the appellant effectively to challenge the claims for the items in question;
(4)
The primary judge erred in holding that having the court file, the benefit of the parties' submissions and her own experience enabled the registrar to assess the amount of work involved in each stage of the litigation process;
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
(5) The primary judge should have concluded that the registrar should have decided that the amounts claimed for those items were, on their face, so high that to make any allowance for them without adequate details would amount to an error in principle. (6) The primary judge should have found that the registrar had made an error in principle and exercised his discretion to rectify that error.
These grounds substantially overlap, are repetitive and tend to obscure the issues in the appeal. The appellant's written and oral submissions were not connected to any specific grounds of appeal. In oral submissions, counsel for the appellant encapsulated the appellant's complaint as follows. The registrar erred in principle in proceeding to tax the bill of costs in circumstances where there were insufficient particulars of some items to enable an assessment by the taxing officer and by the paying party of the reasonableness of the sum claimed.[29]
[29] Appeal ts 2, 4 - 5.
Appellant's submissions
The appellant emphasises the mandatory language of O 66 r 42, in terms that a bill of costs shall 'where necessary' give particulars of the services for which a sum is claimed.[30] Giving the words 'where necessary' their ordinary meaning, particulars are required where reference to the court file will not allow a proper assessment of the work done to be undertaken.[31]
[30] Appellant's submissions [20].
[31] Appellant's submissions [21].
The appellant observes that Practice Direction 4.7.3.1 in the Consolidated Practice Directions 2009 sets out an example bill of costs in relation to getting a case up for trial, which is particularised by details including witnesses proofed and documents drafted.[32] While accepting that the manner and scope of necessary particulars is not mandated by the example, the appellant contends that oral submissions at a taxation cannot supplement a defective bill of costs.[33]
[32] Appellant's submissions [22]; appeal ts 9 - 10.
[33] Appellant's submissions [23]. 34 Appellant's submissions [24].
The appellant contends that the failure to provide adequate particulars deprives the paying party of the opportunity to properly assess the claim and therefore to seek to settle the issue of costs prior to taxation or to accept or reject a provisional assessment of costs. This
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
may lead to requests to adjourn taxation so the paying party can consider oral submissions and seek supporting evidence that would otherwise be sought in advance of taxation.34
The appellant makes the following submissions concerning the particular items in contention:
(1)
The amounts claimed with respect to items 3 and 5 were well in excess of their apparent value having regard to the relevant document or documents on the court file.[35] Where, as here, that is so, a proper assessment cannot be undertaken without particulars.[36] In respect of the costs thrown away by the further amended defence, item 3, the amendments were not substantial, and without particularity of the work done, and when it was done, the claim of 10.8 hours work was unsupportable.[37]
(2)
In respect of item 13, the objection went to the fundamental issue of identifying the amount claimed in respect of items 7 (discovery) and 8 (inspection) of the scale, where the sum claimed was higher than could be justified merely by considering the court documents in question on the court file.[38]
(3)
The schedule provided in relation to item 14 refers to conferences concerning discovery which adds a period of time (the duration of which is unknown and cannot be discerned from the court file) spent in relation to discovery in addition to the time claimed in respect of item 13 (scale item 7).[39]
(4)
In respect of item 14, the lack of particularity as to dates and purpose or subject matter of conferences made it impossible to identify whether any such conferences were within the scope of scale item 24(e) (interlocutory or directions hearing before a registrar), 17 (entry for trial), or not within any item.[40] This is analogous to the situation in which a receiving party refused to waive legal professional privilege for the purpose of taxation
[35] Appellant's submissions [25].
[36] Appellant's submissions [25].
[37] Appellant's submissions [25]; appeal ts 21.
[38] Appellant's submissions [26]; appeal ts 20.
[39] Appellant's submissions [26].
[40] Appellant's submissions [27]; appeal ts 5 - 6.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
but sought the costs of privileged correspondence, making
proper overall assessment of the relevant item impossible.[41][41] Appellant's submissions [27], citing Clay v Karlson (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970424, 21 August
On the appellant's submission, it was an error in principle for the registrar to have begun the task of taxation of the relevant items; the amounts should have been taxed at zero, or an order made for further particulars.[42]
[42] Appeal ts 17 - 18, 20.
The appellant submits that the judge erred in deciding that there was no error in principle as the registrar had the court file, the benefit of the parties' submissions and her own experience, when none of those factors could cure the lack of particularity in the bill of costs and schedule.[43]
[43] Appellant's submissions [28].
Disposition
For the following reasons, we were not persuaded that the registrar made an error in principle.
First, the error in principle now asserted by the appellant is inconsistent with the appellant's conduct of the taxation before the registrar. The appellant accepts that, at the taxation of the bill on 6 November 2017, he did not submit that the taxation should be adjourned on the ground that the insufficiency of the particulars provided by the respondent made it impossible for a proper assessment to occur.[44] Rather, it is to be inferred that the appellant, by his counsel, engaged in the process of taxation.
[44] Appeal ts 7.
Subsequent to the taxation, the appellant lodged the table of objections in the terms set out in [9] above. The lodging of those objections did not require the registrar to put aside the taxation which had occurred and, in respect of specified items the subject of objection, reopen the process and require further information. The process of objection under O 66 r 53 does not permit a paying party to engage in a process of taxation, item by item, and then, if dissatisfied with the result of the process, claim that the process should not have been undertaken at all. The process of objection does not have the character, ascribed to it by counsel for the appellant, of a 'cooling-off period'.[45] Objections
[45] Appeal ts 8.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
lodged under O 66 r 53 must be consistent with the manner in which
the objecting party has conducted the taxation process.
Secondly, a central element of the appellant's case on appeal is his complaint that, as the paying party, he was deprived of the proper opportunity to challenge the amounts claimed by the lack of appropriate particularity. However, that was not the subject of any of the objections made to the registrar and so the registrar cannot be said to have erred in principle in that respect. We proceed to explain this conclusion.
The terms of the appellant's objections to the registrar are set out at [9] above. On appeal, the appellant concentrated his arguments on the objection concerning item 14. The terms of that objection are directed to the alleged inability of the taxing officer to make an appropriate assessment. There is no complaint in the objection concerning the ability of the appellant, as paying party, to dispute the reasonableness of the amount claimed. Nor, contrary to the appellant's submission on appeal,[46] could that be implied, particularly in circumstances where the taxation process had been completed and the objection was lodged subsequent to it.
[46] Appeal ts 13.None of the objections to items 3, 5 or 13 asserted any difficulty on the part of the appellant arising from the absence of particulars in respect of the items in question. Moreover, it may be noted that the objections to these items were not expressed in a manner revealing an error in principle. For example, the objection to item 3 complained that the taxing officer erred in 'not sufficiently taking into account' the lack of detail and, in respect of item 13, that the allowance 'failed to give adequate weight to' the lack of information. Weighting errors do not reveal an error in principle in the exercise of a discretion.
Thus, the substance of the appellant's objections to the registrar was that the absence of adequate particulars meant the registrar could not, and should not, tax the bill. That is how the registrar understood the appellant's objections.[47] As counsel for the appellant conceded on appeal, that was a correct understanding.[48] The registrar's task, and only task, was to reconsider and review the taxation 'in relation to the objections'.[49] It was not for the registrar to consider matters beyond
[47] Registrar's review of taxation [5].
[48] Appeal ts 14.
[49] Order 66 r 54(1).
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
those raised by the appellant's objections. The appellant's complaint that as paying party he was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the bill was not within the ambit of the appellant's objection. That being so, the registrar did not err in respect of that complaint.
Thirdly, the registrar resolved the objections by rejecting the appellant's contention that there was insufficient information before the registrar to enable an assessment of the amount.[50] The registrar explained that where she was of the view that there was insufficient information to support the amount claimed, she taxed off an amount at that item to reflect that.[51] In other words, the registrar approached the matter as follows. If there was not enough information before her to support the amount that was claimed, the registrar reduced the item to an amount that was supported by the information that was before her. No error is revealed by that approach.
[50] Registrar's review of taxation [8].[51] Registrar's review of taxation [8].
The appeal could not succeed unless the conclusion were reached that it was not open to the registrar to form the view that she had sufficient particulars and information to proceed to tax the bill. While the appellant invited us to reach that conclusion, he did not attempt to make it good by reference to the contents of the file that was before the registrar, to which he did not invite our attention. The appellant simply relied on the contents of the relevant items of the schedule. Consideration of those items falls well short of sustaining the conclusion invited - that the registrar reached a view that was not open.
Fourthly, the appellant made clear that he does not contend that the amounts allowed for particular items were so high as to be infected by Wednesbury unreasonableness.[52] However, many of the appellant's submissions as to the need for further particulars assert conclusions as to the excessiveness of the amount claimed for an item when account is taken of what is revealed by the documents on the court file.[53] Not having invited our attention to the documents on the court file, the appellant has not established these assertions.
[52] Appeal ts 4.
[53] See, for example, the italicised aspects of the submission summarised in [27] above.
For these reasons, no error in principle by the registrar was
demonstrated.
[2019] WASCA 34
REASONS OF THE COURT
Conclusion
For the reasons above, we ordered that leave to appeal be refused, the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including reserved costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
SL
Research Associate/Orderly to the Honourable Justice Beech
20 FEBRUARY 2019
1997).
4