Mihic v ERG Telecommunications Ltd

[2000] WADC 78

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   MIHIC -v- ERG TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD [2000] WADC 78

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   7 MARCH 2000

DELIVERED          :   29 MARCH 2000

FILE NO/S:   CIV 3083 of 1998

BETWEEN:   DRAGICA MIHIC

Plaintiff

AND

ERG TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Review of taxation

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act

Result:

Objections not allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr Y Radich

Defendant:     Ms Barker

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Messrs Separovic & Associates

Defendant:     Messrs Pullinger Stewart

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:  In this matter I taxed the plaintiff's Bill of Costs on the 7 March 2000 and the defendant has now brought in objections to my determinations.

2. The first objection relates to item 8 getting up case for trial and is in the following terms:

Item (8) Getting up case for trial

•The plaintiff sought $10,500 in relation to getting up case for trial.  The learned Registrar allowed $8,000 notwithstanding that the matter was settled prior to trial, but after a Pre Trial Conference.

•The amount of the judgment was $50,000 in addition to payments already made and received pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.  It was not a substantial claim and therefore the allowance made for getting up should have reflected that fact.

•As part of getting up, the plaintiff was allowed to claim for investigation of the claim and also engaging an expert, when in fact the expert's report had not been submitted for consideration by the defendant.

•It is the defendant's submission that the allowance of $8,000 is excessive and that a more appropriate allowance would have been in the vicinity of $5,500.

1. I take the view that a general complaint that the allowance made is too high is not a proper basis of objection.  At the taxation of the Bill of Costs I made an inquiry of the plaintiff as to the tasks undertaken in the preparation of the case, made a determination as to the level of complexity of those tasks and therefore the standing of the person who should properly undertake those tasks, made a determination of a reasonable time to undertake those tasks and as a consequence arrived at what I regarded as a proper allowance for the work which was undertaken.

2. As part of the objection there is a complaint that the allowance was made for investigation of the claim.  At face value that seems a remarkable basis of objection since one would have thought getting up the case must necessarily involve such a task, however it may be that it is intended to refer to the fact that an investigator was engaged in order to attempt to locate witnesses who would be prepared to testify on behalf of the plaintiff.  If that is what was intended to be raised by the objection, it appears to me without foundation.  When it comes to the question of tracking down people whose whereabouts are not known to the plaintiff and to obtain an indication from those people whether or not they would be prepared to testify on the plaintiff's behalf, it seems to me that it is quite appropriate for a solicitor to engage an investigator to perform the tasks.  It strikes me as an economy and an increase in efficiency to do so, and I see no reason why some allowance should not be made for the solicitor's time in giving those instructions and liaising with the investigator. 

3. The next objections is as follows:

Disbursements - ergonomics report

•The defendant submits that the plaintiff should not be entitled to claim for the ergonomic report on the basis that it was obtained after the matter had settled.

•In the circumstances, it was open for the plaintiff to instruct the Ergonomist not to provide a report.

1. On the information before me it appears that the Ergonomist had been instructed and had prepared his report before there was a judgment and before there was an agreement.  Certainly nothing was said at the taxation of the plaintiff's Bill nor is anything contained in these submissions which deflects me from that conclusion.

2. The objections having failed I shall sign my certificate in the amount of $18,123.75 upon issuing of these reasons for decision.

3. Accordingly, I see no reason why as part of getting up case for trial an allowance should not be made for the work required to engage an expert.