POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2012] WASC 210 (S2)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 210 (S2)
Case No:	CIV:1714/2010	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	18/09/12
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders to be made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HOSSEAN POURZAND JENNY MARIA POURZAND TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and Procedure Costs Application to remove limits on items in the Scale of costs Application for an allowance for Senior Counsel's involvement in the drawing of the defence Application for an allowance for costs of uploading discovery on to an electronic document management system. Evidence Admissibility of hearsay evidence summarising conclusions of a legal 'review' described as 'expert assistance' on legal issues of the law of the forum Evidence not admissible
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2010 (WA), items 3(b), 7(b), 17, 20 Legal Practitioners Act 2008 (WA), s 280 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 3, O 66 r 51
Case References:	Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources (No 5) [2008] WASCA 181 Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179 (S) EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S) Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S) Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 Heartlink Ltd v Jones As Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 (S) Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2012] WASC 210 SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26 (S2)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : POURZAND -v- TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD [2012] WASC 210 (S2) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 18 SEPTEMBER 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 - Application to remove limits on items in the Scale of costs - Application for an allowance for Senior Counsel's involvement in the drawing of the defence - Application for an allowance for costs of uploading discovery on to an electronic document management system.

Evidence - Admissibility of hearsay evidence summarising conclusions of a legal 'review' described as 'expert assistance' on legal issues of the law of the forum - Evidence not admissible

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2010 (WA), items 3(b), 7(b), 17, 20

(Page 2)

Legal Practitioners Act 2008 (WA), s 280
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 3, O 66 r 51

Result:

Orders to be made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : No appearance

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

Defendant : Lavan Legal

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

Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources (No 5) [2008] WASCA 181
Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179 (S)
EDWF…

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 Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd 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: [2012] WASC 210 (S2)
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd involved a legal dispute between the parties in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Pourzand, sought damages against Telstra Corporation Ltd for alleged breaches of privacy. The court had to consider a number of applications related to costs and evidence. These included an application to remove limits on certain items in the Scale of Costs, an allowance for Senior Counsel's involvement in the preparation of the defence, and an allowance for the costs of uploading discovery onto an electronic document management system. Additionally, the court had to decide on the admissibility of hearsay evidence summarising the conclusions of a legal review described as "expert assistance" on legal issues of the forum's law.

The court's primary task was to determine the legal principles governing the applications for costs and the admissibility of the evidence. Regarding costs, the court needed to consider the appropriateness of the applications to remove limits on certain items in the Scale of Costs and whether an allowance for Senior Counsel's involvement and the costs of uploading discovery were justified. As for the evidence, the court had to determine whether the hearsay evidence summarising the conclusions of the legal review was admissible under the rules of evidence.

The court concluded that the applications for costs were not justified and were denied. The court held that the Scale of Costs was intended to provide a reasonable framework for the recovery of costs and that the applications sought to circumvent this framework. The court also found that the involvement of Senior Counsel and the costs of uploading discovery were not exceptional circumstances warranting an allowance under the rules of court. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court held that the hearsay evidence summarising the conclusions of the legal review was inadmissible as it did not meet the criteria for hearsay exceptions.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's applications for costs and the admissibility of evidence were dismissed. The final orders of the court included a denial of the applications for costs and the exclusion of the hearsay evidence from the proceedings. The case highlights the importance of adhering to the rules of court and the principles of evidence in legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders to be 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.