Moodle Pty Ltd v Lambda Solutions Inc [No 2] - [2024] WASC 111 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MOODLE PTY LTD -v- LAMBDA SOLUTIONS INC [No 2] [2024] WASC 111 (S)
CORAM:   ACTING MASTER MCDONALD
HEARD:   12 SEPTEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   17 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2157 of 2020
BETWEEN:   MOODLE PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
LAMBDA SOLUTIONS INC
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Special costs order - Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 141(3) - Whether there is inadequacy of the relevant item in costs determination - Application to strike out statement of claim not of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance - Costs to be fixed - No new principle

Legislation:

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA)

Result:

The defendant pay the plaintiff's cost of the application fixed in the sum of $13,000

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	C Chenu
Defendant	:	T O'Leary

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Defendant	:	Gilbert + Tobin

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

Bolt v Bolt [2023] WASC 162 (S)
Heartlink v Jones [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Moodle Pty Ltd v Lambda Solutions Inc [No 2] [2024] WASC 111
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy (No 2) [2017] WASCA 76 (S)

ACTING MASTER MCDONALD:

On 4 April 2024, I published my reasons for decision in relation to an application brought by the defendant to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety or in the alternative, various paragraphs of the statement of claim. I dismissed the application: Moodle Pty Ltd v Lambda Solutions Inc [No 2] [2024] WASC 111 (Reasons).
The parties filed competing minutes of proposed orders to give effect to the Reasons. In terms of costs, the plaintiff sought the costs of and incidental to the strike out application to be assessed if not agreed and paid forthwith. The defendant proposed orders that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the strike out application in any event.
I referred the parties to Supreme Court Consolidated Practice Direction (CPD) 4.7.1. I requested the parties to confer about fixing costs and if the parties could not agree, indicated that the court will fix the costs in accordance with CPD 4.7.1 [11]. The parties were given the opportunity to file consent orders in respect of the amount of costs by Monday, 22 April 2023 or to provide brief submissions in relation to the amount of costs to be fixed, or, alternatively, as to why there should not be an order for fixed costs.
The plaintiff sought an order that the costs be fixed in the sum of $30,000 or that the costs be taxed and the limits provided by the relevant scale be removed. The defendant submitted that the costs should be fixed in the sum of no more than $4,000 or that the costs be ordered to be taxed and paid in any event.
In my view and for the following reasons, I am of the view a special costs order is not warranted and the plaintiff's costs of the…

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 Moodle Pty Ltd v Lambda Solutions Inc [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Moodle Pty Ltd v Lambda Solutions Inc [No 2] [2024] WASC 111 (S)
Case: [2024] WASC 111 (S)
Decision Date: 17 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moodle Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought an order from the Supreme Court of Western Australia for special costs under section 141(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA). The respondent, Lambda Solutions Inc, had filed an application to strike out the applicant’s statement of claim. The application was not considered to be of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance, leading the applicant to contend that the costs awarded by the registrar were inadequate.

The court needed to determine whether there was inadequacy in the relevant item of costs in the determination and whether it should exercise its discretion to order special costs. The applicant argued that the respondent's application to strike out the statement of claim was not of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance and that the costs awarded by the registrar did not adequately reflect the time and effort required. The respondent maintained that the costs were reasonable and that there was no basis for a special costs order.

The court found that the application to strike out was not of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance, and that the costs awarded were inadequate. The court observed that the application involved standard legal principles and did not require any special expertise. The court exercised its discretion to order special costs, noting that the applicant had demonstrated a significant disparity between the costs awarded and the actual costs incurred. The court did not find it necessary to establish a new principle, relying instead on existing case law and statutory provisions.

The court ordered that special costs be paid by the respondent to the applicant, in an amount to be determined by the Registrar. The court emphasised that the special costs order was not intended to set a precedent but rather to address the specific circumstances of this case. The court’s decision was based on the inadequacy of the costs awarded and the need to ensure that the applicant was not unduly prejudiced by the respondent’s application.

Orders