Rambal v The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd - [2015] WASCA 197

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: RAMBAL -v- THE GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD [2015] WASCA 197

CORAM: BUSS JA
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 20 APRIL 2015

DELIVERED : 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 23 of 2015

BETWEEN: VIKAS RAMBAL
First Applicant
ANDREAS WALEWSKI
Second Applicant
AND
THE GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Interest on costs - Section 8 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) - Date from which interest payable - Whether interest on costs to be taxed payable from the date of the judgment or order or from the date on which the amount of the costs is certified by the Taxing Officer

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 5(a), s 7, s 8
Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879, 42 & 43 Vict, c 59
Courts Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA), s 128
Judgments Act 1838, 1 & 2 Vict, c 110, s 17, s 18, s 20
Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA)
Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), pt VI, s 70
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
Public Works Act 1902 (WA), s 68, s 71
Remedies of Creditors against the Property of Debtors Act 1842 (WA), s 5
Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (UK) SI 1965/1776, O 45 r 12, Appendix A
Rules of the Supreme Court 1881 (WA), O XXXVIII r 12, O XXXVIII r 14, Schedule I
Rules of the Supreme Court 1883 (UK), O 42 r 14, Appendix H
Rules of the Supreme Court 1888 (WA), O XL r 14, O XL r 16, Appendix H
Rules of the Supreme Court 1909 (WA), O XL r 13, O XL r 15, O LXV r 58, Appendix H
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 6, O 47 r 5, O 66 r 11(2), O 66 r 16, O 66 r 57, Schedule 2
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 4, s 58(1)(d), s 142
Supreme Court Act Amendment Act 1971 (WA), s 13
Supreme Court Amendment Act 1996 (WA), s 9
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, 36 & 37 Vict, c 66
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, 38 & 39 Vict, c 77, s 16, s 33, Schedule 1

Result:

Declaration made as to the proper construction of s 8 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act and the application of s 8 to the present case

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant             :     Mr S Penglis
Second Applicant         :     Mr S Penglis
Respondent:     Mr B D Luscombe

Solicitors:

First Applicant             :     Bennett + Co
Second Applicant         :     Bennett + Co
Respondent:     Clifford Chance

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

Ashworth v English Card Clothing Co Ltd (No 2) [1904] 1 Ch 704
Birla Nifty Pty Ltd v International Mining Industry Underwriters Ltd [2014] WASCA 180 (S)
Boswell v Coaks (1887) 57 LJ Ch 101
Erven Warnink…

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 Rambal v The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty 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: [2015] WASCA 197
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Rambal versus The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute centered around the calculation of interest on taxed costs. Specifically, the issue was whether interest on taxed costs was payable from the date of the judgment or order, or from the date on which the amount of the costs was certified by the Taxing Officer. The plaintiff, Rambal, sought interest on taxed costs from the date of the judgment, while the defendant, The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd, contended that interest should only be calculated from the date of certification by the Taxing Officer.

The court was required to interpret section 8 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) to resolve this dispute. The primary consideration was the language of the statute and the intent behind the provision. The court examined the relevant legislative history and the ordinary meaning of the words used in section 8. The key issue was whether the phrase "from the date of the judgment or order" was intended to apply to the entire judgment or only to the part concerning the certification of costs.

In its decision, the court found that the interest on taxed costs should be payable from the date of the judgment or order, rather than from the date of certification by the Taxing Officer. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute, coupled with the legislative intent to expedite the enforcement of judgments, supported this interpretation. The court held that the phrase "from the date of the judgment or order" was broad enough to encompass the entire judgment, including the certification of costs. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for interest on taxed costs from the date of the judgment was upheld.

The final orders of the court mandated that interest on taxed costs in the case of Rambal versus The Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd be payable from the date of the judgment. This decision clarified the scope of section 8 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) and provided guidance for similar future cases.

Orders