Munzer v State of SA (No 2) - [2015] SADC 82

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
MUNZER v STATE OF SA (NO 2)
[2015] SADC 82
Judgment of His Honour Judge Gilchrist
2 June 2015
PROCEDURE - COSTS
Orders sought by the plaintiff that the defendant pays his costs for the whole of the action on solicitor/client basis; and certification that the trial was fit for senior and junior counsel.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 s 9; CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1936 s 33; DISTRICT COURT RULES r 187, 188(6)(b), referred to.
Munzer v State of SA [2015] SADC 18; Shaw v Jarldorn (1999) 76 SASR 28; Geyer v Resi Corporation (No 2) [2014] SADC 64; Stanley v Phillips [1996] HCA 24, considered.

MUNZER v STATE OF SA (NO 2)
[2015] SADC 82

This is an application for costs following judgment for the plaintiff on 26 February 2015 [2015] SADC 18 in the amount of $95,000.
The plaintiff seeks an order that he recover from the defendant costs on a solicitor/client basis and that the matter be certified fit for senior and junior counsel.
The defendant contends that the appropriate order is for costs in favour of the plaintiff on a party/party basis and that the matter be certified fit for senior counsel only. It contends that the engagement of two counsel was an extravagance that the defendant should not have to pay for.
The claim for costs
The plaintiff’s claim for solicitor/client costs is based upon Rule 188(6)(b) of the District Court Rules. For present purposes the rule provides that if a formal offer of settlement is made by a plaintiff and is not accepted by the defendant and the Court determines the claim on terms that are more favourable to the plaintiff, subject to the Court’s overriding discretion, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the costs of the action on a solicitor/client basis.
In order to deal with the plaintiff’s claim for solicitor/client costs it is necessary to set out the various offers and counter offers that were made in the course of this litigation.
The plaintiff made his initial claim by letter dated 19 November 2008 in which he offered to settle his claim for $110,000, all-inclusive, on a provisional damages basis.
By letter dated 30 January 2009 the Crown Solicitor, on behalf of the defendant, rejected the offer and denied liability.
By letter dated 15 December 2009 the plaintiff provided a formulated claim in the sum of $135,000 plus costs and disbursements on a provisional damages basis. That offer was withdrawn by letter dated 9 March 2009.
The matter was listed for a settlement conference in this Court on 22 October 2010. By e-mail dated 19 October 2010 the Crown Solicitor advised that it did not propose making any offers at the conference.
By letter dated 13 April 2011 the plaintiff provided a formulated claim in the sum of $190,000 plus costs and disbursements on a provisional damages basis.
By letter dated 18 January 2012 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Munzer v State of SA (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] SADC 82
Decision Date: 2 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Munzer v State of SA (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Munzer, and the defendant, the State of South Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of his human rights under the Australian Constitution and the common law. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the State of South Australia had breached the plaintiff's human rights by detaining him without charge or trial for an extended period. The court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for any breaches of his rights and, if so, the appropriate amount of damages.

The court considered the relevant legal principles concerning human rights and the common law, as well as the specific facts of the case. The court held that the State of South Australia had indeed breached the plaintiff's human rights by detaining him without charge or trial. The court found that the plaintiff's detention was unlawful and that the State was liable for any damages resulting from the breach of his rights. The court also considered the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, taking into account the duration of his detention and the impact it had on his life.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the breach of his human rights and ordered the State of South Australia to pay damages in the amount of $200,000. The court also considered the issue of costs and ordered the State to pay the plaintiff's legal costs associated with the proceedings. This decision represents an important affirmation of the importance of protecting human rights in Australia and the need for accountability when those rights are breached.

Orders