Norton v Thompson

[2023] NTSC 4

CITATION:Norton v Thompson [2023] NTSC 4

PARTIES:NORTON, Ann

v

THOMPSON, Michael

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction

FILE NO:2022-02472-SC

DELIVERED:  9 January 2023

JUDGMENT OF:  Burns J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ann Norton

Respondent:  Michael Thompson

Judgment category classification:    C

Judgment ID Number:  Bur2303

Number of pages:  5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Norton v Thompson [2023] NTSC 4
No. 2022-02472-SC

BETWEEN:

ANN NORTON

Applicant

v

MICHAEL THOMPSON

Respondent

CORAM:    Burns J

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 9 January 2023)

Introduction

1. On 10 March 2022 the respondent, Michael Thompson, commenced proceedings in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT) seeking to recover a sum of $1,140 from the applicant, Ann Norton, in relation to the termination of accommodation provided by the applicant at an address in Darwin. The matter proceeded to Hearing before the NTCAT on 15 June 2022. On 5 September 2022 the NTCAT ordered that the applicant pay the respondent the sum of $1,140 together with $70 in costs by close of business on 3 October 2022. A cross claim by the applicant was dismissed.

2. The applicant was dissatisfied with this decision. By an Application for Leave to Appeal filed on 25 October 2022, the applicant sought leave to appeal the decision of the NTCAT. Any appeal to this Court from the NTCAT is governed by section 141(1) of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NT). This section restricts an appeal to this Court from a decision of the NTCAT to appeal on a question of law.

3. On 24 October 2022, Grant CJ made orders staying the enforcement of the orders made by the NTCAT. The application came before myself on 15 November 2022. It became apparent that the applicant’s principal complaints related to findings of fact made by the NTCAT. To the extent that any matter raised by the applicant could raise a question of law, I was satisfied that there were insufficient prospects for success to grant leave.

4. On 15 November 2022 I made the following orders:

   (a)     the appeal was dismissed; and

   (b)     the order made by Grant CJ on 24 October 2022 is vacated.

5. In retrospect, the first order as set out above should technically have been an order that the application for leave to appeal was refused. I amend the order accordingly.

6. The respondent applied for an order for costs of the application for leave to appeal. I directed the respondent to provide the Court and the applicant with an itemised account of costs incurred. An itemised account from Cozens Johansen Lawyers dated 9 November 2022 was filed by the respondent. As I understand it, the respondent sought legal advice with regard to the application for leave to appeal, and also instructed these lawyers to provide him with assistance in drafting submissions and in drafting an affidavit. The lawyers were not instructed to appear on the application, and both parties were unrepresented. The itemised account totals $2,227.50. In addition, the respondent seeks $78 as for the filing fee for Application for Issue of Warrant of Execution dated 11 October 2022.

7. No submissions were received from the applicant concerning the contents of the itemised account provided by the respondent’s lawyers.

8. The time spent by the respondent’s lawyers in assisting the respondent in preparation for the appeal, as set out in the itemised account, is recorded in units. I take each unit to be one tenth of an hour, or six minutes. On that basis, the respondent’s lawyers were charging $45 per unit for some attendances and $32 per unit for others. This may reflect the differing levels of seniority of the practitioners involved. The rate per unit for the most senior practitioner prescribed in Part 1 of the Appendix to Order 63 of the Supreme Court Rules, as amended in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Appendix, at the time of the attendances set out in the itemised account, was $38 per unit. This is the rate that would be ordinarily allowable on a taxation of costs on a standard basis. I will allow the attendances charged at $32 per unit at that rate, but I will only allow the other attendances at $38 per unit.

9. The respondent submitted that costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis. I do not accept that submission. The matter was relatively simple and the applicant did not conduct the matter in such a manner that would warrant an indemnity costs order.

10. None of the attendances itemised in the account appear to have been unnecessary.

11. I order the applicant to pay the respondent $2,012, being $1,934 in costs and $78 for the filing fee.

------------