Perth Photography Services Pty Ltd v Perth Professional Sales and Service Pty Ltd

[2010] WADC 57

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   PERTH PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES PTY LTD -v- PERTH PROFESSIONAL SALES AND SERVICE PTY LTD [2010] WADC 57

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   8 APRIL 2010

DELIVERED          :   27 APRIL 2010

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2692 of 2004

BETWEEN:   PERTH PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

PERTH PROFESSIONAL SALES AND SERVICE PTY LTD
Defendant

PHOTO ELECTRONIC SERVICES PTY LTD
Third Party

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Review of taxation - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objection not allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr T T S Chin

Defendant:     Mr J C Curthoys

Third Party                   :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Lawton Lawyers

Defendant:     Stables Scott

Third Party                   :     Maitland Lawyers

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

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:  In this action the defendant became entitled to present a bill of costs for taxation following the conclusion of the trial.  That taxation took place on 8 April 2010 and the plaintiff has brought in objections to certain of the amounts allowed on the taxation.  The first objection relates to item 11 getting up case for trial.  A total of $39,650 was claimed of which $32,400 was allowed.  The objection essentially is as to quantum, and as such not a valid objection however I will deal with the propositions that are advanced. 

2. I canvassed the issues involved in the case and the work required to properly prepare the defendant's case and concluded that the work undertaken by the defendant would justify an allowance of approximately the maximum.  The action however had been progressing for a number of years and a number of scales determined the amounts which could be recovered those periods.  Recognising that fact a deduction was made from the amount claimed intended to reflect the variations within the scale during the progress of the action and also to some extent to slightly reduce the amount claimed.

3. In this case the plaintiff presented a considerable number of proposed and actual amended statements of claim.  Some allowance has been made for those proposed statements of claim which were the subject of application, however the constant shifting of the nature of the claim, and the expansion and contraction of the quantum of the claim in my view exposed the defendant to a significant amount of extra work.  The fact that the defendant only called two witnesses does not necessarily indicate to me that the claim was not justified and as I have earlier indicated I consider that the nature of the claim required a significant effort on behalf of the defendant to prepare a case for trial such as to attract something approaching a maximum. 

4. There is a comment contained within the objection concerning double recovery for a particular witness.  I am unable to perceive at any instance that double recovery has been made.  The allowance which I made was for the work which was undertaken by the defendant which I considered proper and necessary in the context of the case.

5. The next allowance challenged is that for item 2 which was an allowance for the transcript.  The trial lasted six days and the defendant engaged independent counsel to conduct the trial on its behalf.  That counsel indicated that he wished to be provided with a transcript to assist him in the task and I concluded that was appropriate given the nature and length of the trial and accordingly made the allowance sought.  I am unable to perceive that in doing so, I was in error.

6. Neither objection being upheld, I will sign the defendant's bill in the amount allowed upon the publishing of the reasons for decision.