POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2012] WASC 210 (S)

Pending Appeal

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 210 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1714/2010	Heard:	19 JUNE 2012
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	20/06/12
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HOSSEAN POURZAND JENNY MARIA POURZAND TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and Procedure Costs Whether costs allowable for travel expenses incurred by client to attend trial and provide instructions Practice and procedure Costs Whether indemnity costs order should be made Rejection of defendant's offer was unreasonable in all the circumstances
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2010 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 3, O 66 r 51
Case References:	Australian Blue Metal Ltd v Hughes [1970] 2 NSWR 119 Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 CGU Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Rees [2003] VSCA 18; (2003) 6 VR 227, 231 Cockburn Cement Ltd v The Minister for the Environment (WA) [2011] WASC 260 (S) Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115; (2009) 41 WAR 1 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298 Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 85 Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927 Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Boswell (1992) 39 FCR 288 Walton v McBride (1995) 36 NSWLR 440

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2012] WASC 210 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 19 JUNE 2012 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1714 of 2010 BETWEEN : HOSSEAN POURZAND

JENNY MARIA POURZAND

Plaintiffs

AND

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and Procedure - Costs - Whether costs allowable for travel expenses incurred by client to attend trial and provide instructions

Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether indemnity costs order should be made - Rejection of defendant's offer was unreasonable in all the circumstances

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2010 (WA)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 3, O 66 r 51

(Page 2)

Result:

Orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr P J Hannan

Defendant : Mr S M Davies SC & Mr H H Jackson

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

Defendant : Lavan Legal

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

Australian Blue Metal Ltd v Hughes [1970] 2 NSWR 119
Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
CGU Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Rees [2003] VSCA 18; (2003) 6 VR 227, 231
Cockburn Cement Ltd v The Minister for the Environment (WA) [2011] WASC 260 (S)
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115;

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.

Continue reading Pourzand v Telstra Corp Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pourzand v Telstra Corp Ltd [2012] WASC 210 (S)
Case: [2012] WASC 210 (S)
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pourzand v Telstra Corp Ltd was heard in a lower court in Australia. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Pourzand, who sought compensation from Telstra Corp Ltd, the defendant, for certain legal costs incurred during the proceedings. The plaintiff argued that the costs were necessary for the trial and included travel expenses for the client to attend and provide instructions. The court had to determine whether these costs were allowable under the relevant laws and whether an indemnity costs order should be made, given that the rejection of the defendant's offer was deemed unreasonable in the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the travel expenses incurred by the plaintiff's client to attend the trial and provide instructions were allowable under the applicable legal practice and procedure rules, and whether an indemnity costs order should be granted to the plaintiff due to the unreasonable rejection of the defendant's offer. The court had to assess the necessity and reasonableness of the travel expenses and determine if the defendant's offer was indeed unreasonable.

The court found that the travel expenses were necessary and reasonable, as they were essential for the client to attend and provide instructions during the trial. Consequently, these costs were allowable. Additionally, the court ruled that the rejection of the defendant's offer was unreasonable in the given circumstances, thereby justifying an indemnity costs order in favour of the plaintiff. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had acted reasonably and that the defendant's offer was not a genuine attempt to resolve the matter.

The court ordered that the defendant, Telstra Corp Ltd, pay the plaintiff, Pourzand, the allowable costs, including the travel expenses for the client's attendance and instructions during the trial. Furthermore, the court granted an indemnity costs order, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the unreasonable rejection of the defendant's offer. These orders were made to ensure that the plaintiff was compensated for the necessary expenses incurred during the proceedings and to discourage unreasonable conduct in future litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.