POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2014] WASCA 14 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 14 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:69/2012	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	McLURE P PULLIN JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	13/02/14
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs orders made
Category:	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

HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 13 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 69 of 2012 BETWEEN : HOSSEAN POURZAND

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.

In the case of Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd, the dispute arose between the appellants, who were represented by Pourzand, and the respondent, Telstra Corporation Ltd. The appellants sought costs of their appeal against the respondent. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The core of the dispute involved the assessment and allocation of costs incurred during the appellate process, specifically whether the appellants were entitled to recover the costs they had incurred in the appeal.

The legal issues that the court had to address were centered on the principles and rules governing the awarding of costs in appeals within the Federal Court. The court had to consider the relevant case law, statutes, and the Federal Court Rules that dictate the circumstances under which costs can be awarded to an appellant. A critical consideration was whether the appellants had succeeded on the appeal and, if so, to what extent they were entitled to recover their costs from the respondent.

The court examined the merits of the appeal and determined that the appellants had been successful. It further assessed the appropriate costs that could be recovered by the appellants. The court held that the appellants were entitled to a portion of their costs, but not in full. It reasoned that while the appellants had succeeded on the appeal, there were certain aspects of their application for costs that did not meet the criteria for full recovery. The court's decision balanced the need to compensate the appellants for their legal expenses against the principle that costs should not be disproportionate to the benefit gained from the appeal.

The final orders of the court included the awarding of costs to the appellants, but in a reduced amount. The court specified the exact sum to be paid by the respondent to the appellants, reflecting the partial success on the appeal. This decision provided clarity on the allocation of costs in the context of appeals in the Federal Court, highlighting the importance of a balanced approach in cost recovery.

Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd

POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2014] WASCA 14 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established