Lawrence v Hatzantonis & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 578

[2007] HCATrans 578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S20 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

WAYNE LAWRENCE

Applicant

and

CORAL MAJORIE HATZANTONIS

First Respondent

ROMA LAWRENCE

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.14 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   In November 2004, Bryson J made a number of costs orders against the applicant.  A bill of costs was then prepared and placed before a costs assessor.  The applicant objected to the costs assessor's decision before a review panel, complaining that the bill of costs was not in proper form.  The applicant's complaints were rejected and there was a further appeal to Harrison Ass-J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  In that application, the objections were broadened to a complaint that both the assessor and the panel had misunderstood the original orders of Bryson J.  All of the complaints raised by the applicant were rejected.  None was held to warrant a grant of leave.  The Associate Judge concluded that it was open to the assessor and the panel to reach the conclusions which they did.

The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.  His application was decided in December 2006 by a court comprising Handley and Tobias JJA.  The reasons of the court for refusing leave to appeal were given by Handley JA.

The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  Appeals to this Court confined to issues of costs (which are often inherently disputable and involve discretionary determinations) are rare; although they are sometimes allowed if a point of principle or arguable injustice is shown:  Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2001) 203 CLR 645.

In our view, the applicant has not demonstrated that the interpretation of the relevant cost order adopted below was not one reasonably open.  There are no reasonable prospects that the applicant would succeed in an appeal to this Court.  Special leave must therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented in this Court, his application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.16 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED