PEZZANO -v- HOFFMANS (A FIRM) [1999] WASC 154

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 154
Case No:	LPA:139/1996	Heard:	19 AUGUST 1999
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	19/08/99
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	ROCCO DOMENICO PEZZANO HOFFMANS (A FIRM)
Catchwords:	Costs Taxation of costs adjourned sine die by Taxing Officer Master has no express or inherent power to order Taxing Officer to proceed with taxation
Legislation:	Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) Supreme Court Rules, O 60, O 66 and O 67
Case References:	Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19 Clay & Anor v Karlson & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970424; 21 August 1997 Director of Public Prosecutions v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129 Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1 Reed v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1 Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178 Thompson v Thompson (1942) 59 WN (NSW) 219 TK v Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PEZZANO -v- HOFFMANS (A FIRM) [1999] WASC 154 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 19 AUGUST 1999 DELIVERED : 19 AUGUST 1999 FILE NO/S : LPA 139 of 1996 MATTER : Legal Practitioners Act 1893

and

A Bill of Costs

BETWEEN : ROCCO DOMENICO PEZZANO

Client

AND

HOFFMANS (A FIRM)

Practitioners

Catchwords:

Costs - Taxation of costs adjourned sine die by Taxing Officer - Master has no express or inherent power to order Taxing Officer to proceed with taxation

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935(WA)

Supreme Court Rules,O 60, O 66 and O 67

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Client : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Practitioners : Mr G R Dean

Solicitors:

Client : Hoffmans

Practitioners : G D Crocket & Co

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

Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19

Case(s) also cited:

Clay & Anor v Karlson & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970424; 21 August 1997
Director of Public Prosecutions v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129
Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1
Reed v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1
Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178
Thompson v Thompson (1942) 59 WN (NSW) 219
TK v Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER : On 16 June 1999 Registrar Powell had before him a solicitor/client bill for taxation. On the previous day, 15 June 1999, Mr Pezzano commenced a Supreme Court action CIV 1647 of 1999 alleging negligence and breach of the retainer by the practitioners. Registrar Powell adjourned the taxation sine die and gave oral reasons which were later typed and which I now quote:

"The taxation of the bill filed 18 December 1996 was adjourned sine die by me on 16 June 1999 because a key factor in the client's opposition of the bill was a claim by the client that…

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 Pezzano v Hoffmans (A Firm) 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: [1999] WASC 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pezzano v Hoffmans (A Firm), the Supreme Court of Western Australia was presented with an application regarding the taxation of costs between Rocco Domenico Pezzano and the legal firm Hoffmans. Pezzano, the client, had raised allegations of negligence and breach of retainer against Hoffmans, which led to the adjournment of a bill of costs sine die by the Registrar. Hoffmans sought an order for the taxing officer to proceed with the taxation, which was denied by the Master. The central legal issue revolved around whether the Master had the authority to compel the taxing officer to proceed with the taxation, given the existing allegations of negligence and the prior adjournment of the bill.

The Master, Bredmeyer, examined the scope of the Supreme Court’s inherent powers and the specific provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and the Supreme Court Rules. Bredmeyer concluded that there was no express or inherent power that allowed the Master to order the taxing officer to proceed with the taxation. The court referenced several precedents, including Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19, which highlighted the limitations of inherent powers in the context of taxation matters. The Master determined that any review of the taxing officer’s decision on costs must be conducted by a judge, as outlined in Order 66 of the Rules. Furthermore, Bredmeyer found that the Rules did not provide any explicit authority for the Master to issue such an order, nor was there any established practice or precedent supporting such a power.

As a result, the Master dismissed the application by Hoffmans, affirming that there was no statutory or customary authority enabling the Master to compel the taxing officer to proceed with the taxation. The Master’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to the established procedures and authorities delineated in the court’s rules and statutes.

Orders