Pratt v Latta (No 2)

[2002] FMCA 43

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRATT & ORS v LATTA & ANOR (No. 2) [2002] FMCA 43

COSTS – consideration of the operation of the Federal Magistrates Court scale of costs – enforcement and taxation of costs under the Federal Magistrates Court Rules considered.

Federal Court Rules
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Suew Fong Lin v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No 2) [2002] FMCA 1

First Applicant:	DORIS PRATT
Second Applicant:	BRYAN PRATT
Third Applicant:	BRONWEN PRATT

First Respondent:

JAMES LATTA

Second Respondent:

LYN BRITZ LIMITED

trading as HORIZON REAL ESTATE

File No: CZ10 of 2000

Delivered on: 22 March 2002

Delivered at:	Canberra
Hearing Date:	22 March 2002

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms M Tsui
Vandenberg Reid

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Constance
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Snedden Hall & Gallop

ORDERS

1. That the respondents pay to the applicants the sum of $17,543.59 within 21 days of the date of entry of these orders.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CANBERRA

CZ10 of 2000

DORIS PRATT

First Applicant

BRYAN PRATT

Second Applicant

BRONWEN PRATT

Third Applicant

And

JAMES LATTA

First Respondent

LYN BRITZ LIMITED
trading as HORIZON REAL ESTATE

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I gave judgment earlier today and formally reserved my reasons on an application by the successful applicants in the principal proceedings: [2001] FMCA 84, for an order for costs in the sum of $13,600.77, being the applicants’ costs of the principal proceedings, plus costs thrown away and costs of this application. In the principal proceedings I awarded the applicants damages and made an order for costs in the applicants’ favour in the following terms:

   2.The respondents are to pay the applicants’ costs of this application, including any reserved costs, assessed in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court Rules and Schedule 1 to those Rules.

   3.The Court certifies, pursuant to Rule 21.15, that it was reasonable for the applicants to employ an advocate to appear at the hearing on 13 June 2001 and 31 August 2001.

2. I gave judgment in the principal proceedings on 5 October 2001.  At that time I roughly calculated the costs that would be payable pursuant to the order at approximately $9,000 plus counsel’s fees and disbursements.  The applicants had sought costs on an indemnity basis but Ms Hay, for the applicants, intimated that that application would not be pursued in the light of the rough estimate of costs payable that I made.  I did not, however, fix the amount of costs payable. 

3. The present application is supported by the affidavit of Maria Man Yee Tsui, solicitor for the applicants, filed on 15 February 2002.  Ms Tsui deposes relevantly as follows:

   a)the principal application for relief under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was filed on 27 October 2000;

   b)on 9 May 2001 I gave directions in the matter preparatory to the trial; 

   c)the trial of the matter commenced on 13 June 2001 but had to be adjourned as…