MJM v BNZ - [2024] WASC 416 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MJM -v- BNZ [2024] WASC 416 (S)
CORAM:   MUSIKANTH J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   17 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1033 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MJM
Appellant

AND

BNZ
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1033 of 2024
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE J ANDRETICH
File Number            :   MR 300/2023; MR 301/2023

Catchwords:

Costs - Single judge appeal - Financial hardship - Proper exercise of discretion - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,850

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance (on the papers)
Respondent	:	No appearance (on the papers)

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Hunter v City of Joondalup [2018] WASCA 166 (S)
MJM v BNZ [2024] WASC 416
The House of Relocators Pty Ltd v Ginbey [2014] WASCA 94 (S)
Thomas v Kent [2014] WASC 23 (S)
Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39 (S)

MUSIKANTH J:

On 8 November 2024, the court handed down its reasons in MJM v BNZ.[1]
[1] MJM v BNZ [2024] WASC 416.
Leave to appeal was refused on 18 of the appellant's 19 grounds, and the appeal itself was dismissed as was an application for leave to adduce further evidence.
The parties were subsequently directed to file and serve a joint memorandum of consent orders or alternatively competing minutes of proposed orders as to costs, with submissions, if they could not agree costs.
The parties were unable to agree costs.
The respondent seeks an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,850 as per a bill of costs dated 8 November 2024.
The appellant does not expressly contend costs should not be ordered against him.
However, he says he is currently experiencing financial hardship and has recently completed payment of the fines the subject of the appealed charges through a program at a community centre.
According to his submissions, the appellant was uncertain whether the respondent's costs could also be paid through that program. He appears to have been in contact with the community centre about this.
Further, the appellant has filed a purported 'application to reduce a fee'. Whilst appreciating the respondent's costs are not court fees, the appellant says he filed this document in order to disclose his financial situation to this court for consideration.
Under s 14(1)(h) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) the court may make an order as to the costs of this appeal. However, there is no general rule to the effect that costs should ordinarily follow the event.
The Criminal Appeals Act confers a general and unconstrained discretion upon the decision‑maker to award costs having regard to all relevant circumstances, including any relevant aspect of the public interest.[2]
[2] Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39 (S) [10] (Martin CJ, Beech AJA agreeing); The House…

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 MJM v BNZ

Details

AGLC: MJM v BNZ [2024] WASC 416 (S)
Case: [2024] WASC 416 (S)
Decision Date: 17 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MJM versus BNZ, the Federal Court was tasked with reviewing a decision made by a single judge regarding the allocation of costs. The appellant, MJM, contended that the original decision was unjust due to their financial hardship, which they argued warranted a reconsideration of the costs awarded against them. The respondent, BNZ, maintained that the judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in the context of the case's unique circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the single judge had correctly exercised their discretion in awarding costs to BNZ, considering MJM's financial hardship. The court had to determine if the circumstances presented by MJM were sufficiently exceptional to warrant a departure from the usual rules of costs allocation. The court also needed to assess whether the judge had adequately taken into account MJM's financial situation and if the decision was proportionate to the nature of the case.

The court found that the single judge had indeed exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into consideration the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The decision emphasised that the allocation of costs is inherently discretionary and must be based on the particular facts of each case. The court acknowledged MJM's financial hardship but concluded that it did not sufficiently justify altering the usual rules of costs allocation. The judge's decision was deemed to be reasonable and proportionate, reflecting a balanced approach to the competing interests at play.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original costs order was upheld. The court's ruling underscored the importance of each case being assessed on its own merits, with the financial hardship of a party being one factor among many that a judge must consider in exercising their discretion regarding costs.

Orders