MAVADDAT -v- LEE [2013] WASC 224

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 224
Case No:	CIV:2415/2012	Heard:	6 MAY 2013
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	6/06/13
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT KYUNG HEE LEE STABLES SCOTT SOLICITORS (A FIRM)
Catchwords:	Costs Party liable to pay costs on an indemnity basis Party liable seeking to set aside costs order between solicitor and client
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Catto v Hampton Australia Ltd (In liq) [2008] SASC 231 Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MAVADDAT -v- LEE [2013] WASC 224 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 6 MAY 2013 DELIVERED : 6 JUNE 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2415 of 2012 BETWEEN : MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT

Plaintiff

AND

KYUNG HEE LEE

First Defendant

STABLES SCOTT SOLICITORS (A FIRM)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Party liable to pay costs on an indemnity basis - Party liable seeking to set aside costs order between solicitor and client

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms M L Coulson

First Defendant : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Second Defendant : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Coulson Legal

First Defendant : Stables Scott

Second Defendant : Stables Scott

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

Catto v Hampton Australia Ltd (In liq) [2008] SASC 231
Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677

(Page 3)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This application concerns an important question to do with the rights of a party against whom an indemnity costs order has been made. It does so in the context of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA). But that fact does not alter the general effect of this decision.

2 The facts are straightforward and uncontroversial. The plaintiff and the first defendant engaged in litigation. The matter went to trial and was 17 days between November 2004 and January 2005. The present first defendant was successful. Costs were awarded in his favour. The costs order was in the following terms:

Except as hereinafter provided all costs due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff be taxed on an indemnity basis such that the Defendant pay all the costs incurred by the Plaintiff except insofar as they are of an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred, so that subject to the above exceptions, the Plaintiff be completely indemnified by the Defendant for her costs.

3 In March of 2012 the second defendants, as solicitors acting for the first defendant, lodged a bill for taxation in an amount of $510,713.84. The costs claimed are the costs incurred by the first defendant under a costs agreement dated 3 June 2002 entered into between the first defendant and the second defendant. A copy of that costs agreement appears an annexure MMM 6 to the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 21 August 2012. By originating summons dated 21 August…

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 Mavaddat v Lee

Details

AGLC: MAVADDAT -v- LEE [2013] WASC 224
Case: [2013] WASC 224
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mavaddat v Lee, the dispute revolved around the issue of legal costs, specifically which party should bear the burden of paying costs on an indemnity basis. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mavaddat, sought to set aside a costs order that had been made between the defendant, Lee, and Lee's solicitor. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had grounds to interfere with the costs order that had already been made by the court, which determined that Lee was liable to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The court examined the circumstances in which a party may seek to set aside a costs order and the principles that guide such decisions. It considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the plaintiff's application to set aside the costs order. The court reviewed the existing legal framework and relevant case law to assess the merits of the plaintiff's application. After careful consideration, the court found that there were no exceptional circumstances present that justified setting aside the costs order.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the application by Mavaddat to set aside the costs order was dismissed. The court upheld the previous order that Lee was liable to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the costs order was dismissed, and no further action could be taken in this regard.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.