McAdam v Chuan

[2001] WADC 1

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   McADAM -v- CHUAN [2001] WADC 1

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   18 DECEMBER 2000

DELIVERED          :   12 JANUARY 2001

FILE NO/S:   CIV 229 of 1996

BETWEEN:   WILLIAM LACEY McADAM

Plaintiff

AND

LIM BENG CHUAN
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Taxation of costs - Circumstances in which the District Court has power to tax a solicitor/client bill

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners Act 1893

Result:

The taxing officer declined to proceed with the taxation for want of jurisdiction

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Ms M A Holwell

Defendant:     In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Taylor Smart

Defendant:     Not Applicable

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: In this matter Judge Fenbury made certain orders on 15 September 2000 on an application by the solicitors for the plaintiff pursuant to s 73 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893.  Relevantly the orders provided that the solicitors have a charge against the monies recovered by virtue of the action and that the bill of costs annexed to a supporting affidavit be submitted for taxation.

2. Purportedly in compliance with the second of those orders a bill of costs for taxation was filed in this Court and came before me on 18 December 2000.  That bill was a solicitor client bill intended to quantify the amount of the charge against the proceeds of the successful action.

3. In my view this Court has the power to tax party/party bills and has the power (pursuant to O 66 r 24) to tax a solicitor/client bill when the plaintiff is a person under a disability.  Otherwise the control of the profession is vested in the Supreme Court and solicitor/client taxations should take place within that court.  There exists power under the Legal Practitioners Act for a taxing officer of the Supreme Court to invest this Court with the power to tax a bill relating to proceedings in this Court by remitting the bill to this Court for taxation.

4. In the present case the bill is drawn up with the Court heading and the effect would be were I to tax it in the form that it is presented that it would be a party/party bill such that the defendant could be called upon to pay it and it could be executed against the defendant as a judgement of the court. No doubt that deficiency in form could be corrected but nonetheless the fundamental problem would remain the same. It appears to me that his Honour in making the order that he did, intended for the bill to be submitted to a taxing officer with the jurisdiction to tax the bill and to sign the certificate. In my view I do not have that power although I accept that when the bill is lodged in the Supreme Court in all probability a taxing officer will remit it back to this Court to be dealt with. That remission is however not a mere administrative formality but the Act which would invest a taxing officer of this Court with the same powers as a taxing officer of the Supreme Court pursuant to s 68(5) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893.

5. For the reason stated I am of the view that it is not appropriate to proceed to tax the bill presented by the solicitors (although in the name of the plaintiff) and I have ruled accordingly.