Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd
[2014] WASCA 14 (S)
•13 FEBRUARY 2014
POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2014] WASCA 14 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 14 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:69/2012 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | McLURE P PULLIN JA MURPHY JA | 13/02/14 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Costs orders made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HOSSEAN POURZAND JENNY MARIA POURZAND TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs Whether appellants entitled to costs of the appeal |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2014] WASCA 14 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2014] WASCA 14 (S) CORAM : McLURE P
- PULLIN JA
MURPHY JA
- First-named Appellant
JENNY MARIA POURZAND
Second-named Appellant
AND
TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : EDELMAN J
Citation : POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2012] WASC 210
File No : CIV 1714 of 2010
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether appellants entitled to costs of the appeal
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Costs orders made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First-named Appellant : No appearance (on the papers)
Second-named Appellant : No appearance (on the papers)
Respondent : No appearance (on the papers)
Solicitors:
First-named Appellant : Lewis Blyth & Hooper
Second-named Appellant : Lewis Blyth & Hooper
Respondent : Arnold Bloch Leibler
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2014] WASCA 14
1 McLURE P & PULLIN JA: These reasons concern the costs of the appeal in Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2014] WASCA 14.
2 The appellants seek an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed, except that the appellants pay any costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the grounds of appeal. Court records show that the relevant orders were made on 21 March and 26 July 2013.
3 The respondent submits that the appellants should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal or, in the alternative, that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal. It claims that if the appellants had clearly articulated their ostensible authority case at trial, it is reasonable to suppose that the trial judge would not have erred in the ways identified by this court and this appeal would not have been necessary. That supposition is not reasonable. Having regard to the trial judge's approach to and the content of his findings of fact, the outcome of the trial would have been the same. Subject to payment of the costs thrown away by their late amendment, the appellants should have the costs of the appeal.
4 Accordingly, I would order that:
1. The appellants pay the respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the grounds of appeal made pursuant to the orders made on 21 March and 26 July 2013;
2. Subject to order 1, the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.
5 MURPHY JA: I agree with the orders for costs proposed in the joint reasons, essentially on the basis that the issue on which the appellant succeeded (by majority) on the appeal was found to have been litigated at trial.
0
2
1