Lauro v Minter Ellison (No 2)

[2022] SASCA 68

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

LAURO v MINTER ELLISON (No 2)

[2022] SASCA 68

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable Justice Lovell, the Honourable Justice Parker and the Honourable Justice David)

18 July 2022

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT - COSTS

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT

The Court refused to grant the applicant permission to appeal against the decision of Bleby J and refused his application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Chivell DCJ.

The respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay its costs. The applicant opposes that application.

Held (by the Court):

1.The respondent to have its costs of, and incidental to, the application for permission to appeal to be agreed or taxed.

LAURO v MINTER ELLISON (No 2)
[2022] SASCA 68

Court of Appeal – Civil: Lovell JA, Parker and David AJJA

1. THE COURT: On 23 December 2021, this Court refused the applicant’s request for permission to appeal against the decision of Bleby J and also refused the application for an extension of time to appeal the decision of Chivell DCJ. The respondent, having been successful on both applications, seeks costs. Both parties made written submissions.

2. The respondent concedes that, as it is a self-represented litigant, it is not entitled to recover solicitor’s fees. It seeks a lump sum amount for counsel fees in the sum of $2,562.00 plus GST.

3. The applicant opposes any award of lump sum costs. The applicant submitted that the Court should make no order as to costs in favour of the respondent.

4. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. However, from the material before the Court, the necessity for counsel to appear is in dispute. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to award lump sum costs. Whether it was necessary for counsel to attend any hearing is a matter for the Taxing Master.

5. The respondent is to have its costs of, and incidental to, the application for permission to appeal to this Court to be agreed or taxed.

6. The applicant seeks other orders in paragraphs 24 and 25 of his written outline. There is no basis for this Court to make such orders and we decline to do so.

   Orders

7. The respondent to have its costs of, and incidental to, the application for permission to appeal to be agreed or taxed.