RANDALL -v- HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD [2008] WADC 83

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WADC 83
Case No:	CIV:2186/1998	Heard:	21 MAY 2008
Coram:	KEEN DCJ	Delivered:	16/06/08
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	PHILLIP CHARLES RANDALL HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD (ACN 004 558 276) MARK ANTHONY TROY
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Application to allow costs above limits Principles involved
Legislation:	Legal Practice Act 2003 s215(2)
Case References:	Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 Jewel Walk Pty Ltd v Kondinin Group Inc [2001] WASC 197 McConnell v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, SCt of WA; Library No 920670; 10 December 1992 O'Rourke v P & B Corp Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Ltd & Anor [2004] WASC 26 Verdell Pty Ltd v F & G Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] WASC 58 (S2)

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RANDALL -v- HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD [2008] WADC 83 CORAM : KEEN DCJ HEARD : 21 MAY 2008 DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2008 FILE NO/S : CIV 2186 of 1998 BETWEEN : PHILLIP CHARLES RANDALL

Plaintiff

AND

HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD (ACN 004 558 276)

Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2196 of 1998 BETWEEN : MARK ANTHONY TROY

Plaintiff

AND

HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD (ACN 004 558 276)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Application to allow costs above limits - Principles involved

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003 s215(2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

CIV 2186 of 1998

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D Garnsworthy

Defendant : Mr J Ley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Cameron Eastwood

Defendant : Freehills

CIV 2196 of 1998

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D Garnsworthy

Defendant : Mr J Ley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Cameron Eastwood

Defendant : Freehills

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

Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254
Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237
Jewel Walk Pty Ltd v Kondinin Group Inc [2001] WASC 197
McConnell v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, SCt of WA; Library No 920670; 10 December 1992

(Page 3)

O'Rourke v P & B Corp Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36
SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Ltd & Anor [2004] WASC 26
Verdell Pty Ltd v F & G Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] WASC 58 (S2)

(Page 4)

1 KEEN DCJ: Before the Court are applications pursuant to s 215(2) Legal Practice Act 2003 (the "Act") to allow costs to be taxed above the limits fixed by the determination made by the Legal Costs Committee in respect of these two matters.

The proceedings

2 The proceedings giving rise to this matter comprised claims made against the defendant. In each case the…

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 Randall v Hamersley Iron 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: [2008] WADC 83
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the court involved Randall, the applicant, and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, the respondent. The matter was a costs application, where the applicant sought permission to recover costs that exceeded the statutory limits imposed by the Civil Proceedings (Costs) Act 1984. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit the applicant to recover costs that were above the statutory limits, considering the principles involved in such applications. Specifically, the court had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the imposition of costs beyond the prescribed caps.

The court dismissed the application, reasoning that the circumstances did not justify the imposition of costs that exceeded the statutory limits. The court found that while there were serious allegations and complex issues in the case, these factors alone were insufficient to warrant an order allowing costs above the statutory caps. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory limits unless there were truly exceptional circumstances that warranted deviation. The dismissal of the application affirmed the principle that statutory limits on costs should not be easily set aside.

The orders of the court were straightforward: the application to allow costs above the limits was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.