Legal Research
Cases
MacDonald v Woolworths Group Limited

MacDonald v Woolworths Group Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 10 May 2019 44 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   MACDONALD -v- WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED [2019] WADC 66
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   5 APRIL 2019
DELIVERED          :   10 MAY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3335 of 2012
BETWEEN:   STANLEY ALLAN MACDONALD
Plaintiff
AND
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
First Defendant
ADINI HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Defendant
EMAD HASSAN MOHAMED HUSSEN
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Special costs orders - Whether a District Court registrar has the jurisdiction to lift or remove scale limits - Whether inadequacy under relevant costs determinations - Whether inadequacy arose by reason of the unusual difficulty, complexity or importance of the matter

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 21, s 26, s 53, s 64, s 68, s 88
District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 8, r 11
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280(2)
Legal Profession (Supreme and District Courts)(Contentious Business) Determination 2018 (WA)
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance Act) 1943 (WA), s 27A

Result:

Special costs orders made

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr F A Robertson
First Defendant	:	Ms M L Coulson
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	McAuliffe Legal
First Defendant	:	HBA Legal
Second Defendant	:	Moray & Agnew Lawyers
Third Defendant	:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Alpine Holdings Pty ltd v Warwick Entertainment Centre Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 53
Atwell v Roberts [2013] WASCA 37 (S)
Beasley v Ocean Foods International Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 116
Brocx v Havilah Legal [2012] WASC 153
Brocx v Mounsey [2009] WADC 113
Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 66 (S)
Cifuentes v Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 316 (S)
Corp v Robinson [2012] WASC 490 (S)
Divjakoski v Boral Window Systems [No 2] [2010] WADC 166
Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation trading as Synergy v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] WASC 469 (S)
Ellis v East Metropolitan Health Service [2018] WADC 36 (S)
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 400
Feaver v Smith [2008] WADC 72; (2008) 58 SR (WA) 204
Forrest-Moore v Belswan (Mandurah) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WADC 217
HAR v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 249
Heartlink Ltd v Jones as Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Maas v O'Neill [2013] WASC 379
Maio v City of Stirling [No 2] [2016] WASCA 45 (S)
McGlinn v Joondalup Hospital Pty Ltd [2013] WADC 105
McGlinn v Joondalup Hospital Pty Ltd [No 2] [2014] WADC 3
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko‑Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24
Re City of Joondalup; Ex parte Mullaloo Progress Association Inc [2003] WASCA 293 (S)
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92
Santos Offshore Pty Ltd v Apache Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 242 (S)
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralology Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 76 (S)
Terravision Pty Ltd…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MacDonald v Woolworths Group Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] WADC 66
Decision Date: 10 MAY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MacDonald v Woolworths Group Limited was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to recover special costs that were allegedly incurred in the District Court. The plaintiff argued that the District Court registrar was incorrect in not lifting or removing the scale limits for the special costs awarded. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court to determine if the District Court registrar had the requisite jurisdiction to make such a decision, and if the costs were inadequate under the relevant determinations.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the jurisdiction of a District Court registrar to make special costs orders, and whether the registrar had erred in not lifting the scale limits for special costs. The plaintiff contended that the District Court registrar had the jurisdiction to make such a decision and that the costs awarded were inadequate because of the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the registrar did not have the requisite jurisdiction to make such a decision and that the costs awarded were adequate.

The court found that the District Court registrar did not have the jurisdiction to lift or remove the scale limits for special costs. The court found that the costs awarded were not inadequate under the relevant determinations. The court held that the matters before the District Court did not involve the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter that would warrant the lifting or removal of the scale limits for special costs. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the inadequacy arose by reason of the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for special costs. The court held that the District Court registrar did not have the jurisdiction to make such a decision, and that the costs awarded were not inadequate under the relevant determinations. The court further held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the inadequacy arose by reason of the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter.

Orders