MTI -v- SUL [2011] WASCA 267 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 267 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:36/2011	Heard:	25 NOVEMBER 2011; ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	13/12/11
Supplementary Delivered:	6/03/12
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applicant entitled to portion of costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MTI SUL
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Applicant successful in part Whether entitled to costs of application Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1
Case References:	MTI v SUL [2011] WASCA 267

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MTI -v- SUL [2011] WASCA 267 (S) CORAM : NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 25 NOVEMBER 2011; ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 6 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 36 of 2011 BETWEEN : MTI

Appellant

AND

SUL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MONCRIEFF J

File No : PT 1025 of 2004

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Applicant successful in part - Whether entitled to costs of application - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1

Result:

Applicant entitled to portion of costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : No appearance (on the papers)

Respondent : No appearance (on the papers)

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Bannerman Solicitors

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

MTI v SUL [2011] WASCA 267

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 15 September 2011, the respondent applied to have the grounds of appeal struck out on the basis that none of the grounds had any reasonable prospect of success and, further, that they were scandalous and vexatious and an abuse of process. The respondent also sought security for costs and an order, pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), that the appellant be restrained from commencing any further proceedings against the respondent without the leave of the court.

2 In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2011, we ordered that the grounds of appeal be struck out, but granted the appellant leave to file and serve an amended appellant's case containing amended grounds of appeal and submissions. The application for security for costs was adjourned sine die. The application under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act was dismissed on the ground that this court had no jurisdiction to hear such an application.

3 The appellant sought an opportunity to make submissions on costs and, on 13 December 2011, it was ordered that written submissions be filed and served and that the question of costs be determined on the papers. The appellant filed submissions on 10 January 2012 and the respondent filed submissions in response on 27 January 2012.

4 The appellant submits, in substance, that as 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 MTI v SUL

Details

AGLC: MTI v SUL [2011] WASCA 267 (S)
Case: [2011] WASCA 267 (S)
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MTI versus SUL was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where MTI sought a partial determination on the costs incurred during the application process. MTI was successful in part, and the court was required to determine whether it was entitled to the costs associated with the application, considering the unique circumstances of this case. The court's decision hinged on whether MTI's success was substantial enough to warrant an award of costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, having been successful in part, was entitled to the costs of the application, and if so, to what extent. The court was tasked with balancing the principle that costs should follow the event against the specific facts of this case, where the applicant had achieved partial success.

The court concluded that MTI was entitled to a portion of the costs, as its success in part justified an award of costs. The court considered the nature of the application, the extent of MTI's success, and the overall fairness of the outcome. The decision was based on the principle that costs should reflect the outcome of the proceedings, and in this instance, the partial success of MTI warranted an appropriate allocation of costs.

The court ordered that the applicant, MTI, was entitled to a portion of the costs associated with the application. The specific amount was not detailed in the summary, but the court's decision ensured that the costs reflected the partial success achieved by MTI.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applicant entitled to portion of costs

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.