Pullinger Readhead Lucas v Golden West Resources Ltd - [2009] WASC 140

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PULLINGER READHEAD LUCAS -v- GOLDEN WEST RESOURCES LTD [2009] WASC 140

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 10 MARCH 2009

DELIVERED : 19 MARCH 2009

PUBLISHED : 21 MAY 2009

FILE NO/S: LPA 56 of 2008

MATTER :Legal Practice Act 2003

BETWEEN: PULLINGER READHEAD LUCAS
Appellant
AND
GOLDEN WEST RESOURCES LTD (ACN 102 622 051)
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :ACTING REGISTRAR J CHRISTO
File No  :LPA 26 of 2008

Catchwords:

Costs - Appeal against grant of extension of time to tax solicitor's bill of costs - Extent of delay in seeking taxation of costs - Whether prejudice to solicitors by delay - Whether appellant bound by the acceptance and payment of the bills by the previous management of the appellant

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 229
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 598, s 616
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 59 r 9, O 60A r 6(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed, in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S V Forbes
Respondent: Mr M P Bruce

Solicitors:

Appellant: Stewart Forbes
Respondent: Lavan Legal

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

Bosco v Solomon Brothers [2006] WASC 307 (S)
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Hay v Butler and Crooks (1991) 7 WAR 333
Lewis Blyth and Hooper v Dennis [2007] WASC 177
Markopoulos v Wedlock [2008] WASC 3; (2008) 26 ACLC 129
Monopak Pty Ltd v Maxim Litigation Consultants [2007] WASC 112
Project Planning and Management (WA) Pty Ltd v Kinrade Australia Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 25; (2003) 27 WAR 194
Webb v Bateman (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6305, 27 May 1986)

JENKINS J: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 19 March 2009 and has been edited from the transcript).

This is an appeal against the decision of a taxing officer under the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) (the Act) s 229 to enlarge the time within which the respondent may require the appellant to itemise its bills of costs.
There are 12 bills which were the subject of the respondent's application to the taxing officer. The parties agree that, given the entire contract rule is not applicable and although there was one application and there is only one appeal from the decision made on it, each bill and the matters related to it should be the subject of separate consideration on appeal.
Further, the parties are in agreement that the appeal is competent and that it is to be heard de novo. I am prepared to proceed on the assumption that the appeal is competent.
As to whether the appeal is to be heard de novo the parties appear to rely on Sanderson M's decision in Project Planning and Management (WA) Pty Ltd v Kinrade Australia Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 25; (2003) 27 WAR 194. That was an appeal…

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 Pullinger Readhead Lucas v Golden West Resources 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: [2009] WASC 140
Decision Date: 19 MARCH 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involves an appeal against the granting of an extension of time for the taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs in a dispute between Pullinger Readhead Lucas and Golden West Resources Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal. The appellants, Pullinger Readhead Lucas, sought to challenge the primary judge's decision to permit an extension of time for the taxation of their solicitor's bill of costs. The primary judge had granted an extension on the basis that the delay in seeking taxation was not unreasonable and that there was no prejudice to the respondent, Golden West Resources Ltd, due to the delay.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the primary judge was correct in granting an extension of time for the taxation of the solicitor's bill of costs, despite the significant delay in seeking taxation. The appellants argued that the delay was unreasonable and that the primary judge should have refused the extension. The respondents contended that the delay was not unreasonable and that there was no prejudice caused by the delay. Additionally, the court considered whether the appellants were bound by the acceptance and payment of the bills by the previous management of the appellant.

The court held that the primary judge was correct in granting the extension of time for the taxation of the solicitor's bill of costs. The court found that the delay in seeking taxation was not unreasonable and that there was no prejudice to the respondents due to the delay. The court also determined that the appellants were not bound by the acceptance and payment of the bills by the previous management of the appellant, as the current management had not adopted or ratified the bills. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders