Polglaze Nominees Pty Ltd v Rooke

[2003] WADC 164

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   POLGLAZE NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- ROOKE [2003] WADC 164

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   19 MAY 2003

DELIVERED          :   28 JULY 2003

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1633 of 2001

BETWEEN:   POLGLAZE NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 786 892)

Plaintiff

AND

HOWARD WILLIAM ROOKE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Objections to taxation - Turns on its own facts.

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objections Not allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr B L Oakley

Defendant:     Mr J Eastoe

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Granich Partners

Defendant:     Jonathan Eastoe

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:  This matter arises from my taxation of the plaintiff's bill of costs on 19 May 2003.

2. At the conclusion of that taxation I made an order fixing the time within which either party might bring in objections to the taxation as 14 days.  On the final day, that is 3 June 2003, I received objections as follows:

   "The defendant contends that the Taxing Officer has made errors in principle in allowing the following items of the plaintiff's Bill of Costs dated September 2002.

   Item 4: Statement of Claim

   Item 8: Getting up Case for Trial

   Item 11: Drawing Bill of Costs, copies and service

   Item 14: Getting up appeal for hearing

   Item 15: Counsel fee

   Item 16: Proceedings in Chambers."

3. A further paragraph accompanied the formal objections in the following terms:

   "I intend to file the grounds for objection in due course once I have been supplied with the plaintiff's solicitors costs agreement (or alternatively advice that no such agreement is in place).  I have written to the plaintiff's solicitors on this point.  There was at the hearing of the taxation no point raised regarding whether or not there was in existence any agreement between the plaintiff and its solicitors."

4. The objections proceeded before me on 21 July 2003 at which time the plaintiff's solicitors indicated to me that the amount of the bill of costs for taxation as allowed by me was less than the amount charged to and paid by their client.  It is a matter of principle that a successful party to an action is only entitled to an indemnity against the costs which he, she or it may be called upon to pay and is not entitled to any surcharge or profit in respect of those costs.  It therefore follows that once I was assured that the successful plaintiff had in fact paid his solicitors more than the amount allowed on the Bill of Costs the question of a costs agreement became irrelevant.

5. In my view the objections to the taxation are entirely inadequate and there was no argument advanced in the course of the hearing to support the alleged errors in principle upon which the objection relied.  In those circumstances none of the objections succeed and the Bill of Costs will be signed in the amount allowed at the taxation together with an allowance for the costs of the objection.  An allowance of $150 for the objections would be appropriate and that shall be added to the taxed costs bringing the total to $11,322.15.  I shall sign my certificate in that sum on the issue of these reasons and the time for appeal against my decision shall be extended to 14 days from that date.