RAINBOW PTY LTD and HAWKINS & ANOR [2007] WASAT 216 (S)

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2007] WASAT 216 (S)
Act:	BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA)
Case No:	CC:1566/2006	Heard:	30 MAY 2007
Coram:	MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER) MS J HAWKINS (MEMBER)	Delivered:	28/08/07
Supplementary Delivered:	17/12/07
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs assessed at $3036
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RAINBOW PTY LTD GARRY HAWKINS SARAH-JANE HAWKINS
Catchwords:	Costs Discretion as to costs Assessment of reasonable costs
Legislation:	Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 34A, s 38(3) Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2006 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87
Case References:	J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282(S) Lai & Anor and Costa [2006] WASAT 117(S)
Orders	The applicant to pay the respondents' costs in the sum of $3036.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : BUILDERS' REGISTRATION ACT 1939 (WA) CITATION : RAINBOW PTY LTD and HAWKINS & ANOR [2007] WASAT 216 (S) MEMBER : MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER)

MS J HAWKINS (MEMBER)

HEARD : 30 MAY 2007 DELIVERED : 28 AUGUST 2007 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 18 DECEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CC 1566 of 2006 BETWEEN : RAINBOW PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

GARRY HAWKINS

SARAH-JANE HAWKINS

Respondents

Catchwords:

Costs - Discretion as to costs - Assessment of reasonable costs

Legislation:

Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 34A, s 38(3)

(Page 2)

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2006
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87

Result:

Costs assessed at $3036

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms K Whitehead

Respondents : Mr G Maddy

Solicitors:

Applicant : Godfrey Virtue & Co

Respondents : Great Southern Legal Pty Ltd

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

J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282(S)
Lai & Anor and Costa [2006] WASAT 117(S)

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 This is a decision in relation to the respondents' application for costs following orders made by this Tribunal on 28 August 2007.

2 The Tribunal found that it was appropriate in this case to exercise its discretion under s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and make an award of costs to the respondents. The respondents sought costs in the sum of $16 159.55. Upon an assessment of costs and in the light of the Tribunal's obligation to minimise the costs to the parties, it assessed costs in the sum of $3036.

3 The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the respondents costs in the sum of $3036.

Background

4 On 28 August 2007, the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissed the applicant's application for review of a decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal (Disputes Tribunal). The decision of the Disputes Tribunal was affirmed and by order made on 28 August 2007, the parties were granted leave to…

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 Rainbow Pty Ltd and Hawkins & Anor 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: [2007] WASAT 216 (S)
Decision Date: 28 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved Rainbow Pty Ltd as the appellant, and Hawkins & Anor as the respondents. The dispute revolved around the assessment of reasonable costs in the context of a legal proceeding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary judge had made an order regarding the costs. The appellant contested this order, leading to the appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was the exercise of discretion in the assessment of reasonable costs. The appellant argued that the primary judge had misapplied the principles governing the assessment of costs, particularly in relation to the recovery of disbursements and the calculation of professional fees. The respondents defended the primary judge's decision, asserting that the assessment was fair and in accordance with established legal principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the primary judge's exercise of discretion and the reasoning behind the cost assessment. The court found that the primary judge had not erred in the exercise of discretion, as the assessment was based on a sound understanding of the relevant legal principles. The court also noted that the costs were reasonable and proportionate to the work undertaken. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the costs assessed by the primary judge were upheld. The final order of the court was that the costs of $3036 would stand as assessed by the primary judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs assessed at $3036

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.