Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [No 4]

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: RANKILOR -v- CIRCUIT TRAVEL PTY LTD [No 4] [2011] WADC 62

CORAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD: 24 JANUARY 2011

DELIVERED : 18 APRIL 2011

FILE NO/S: APP 58 of 2010

BETWEEN: WENDY RANKILOR
Appellant
AND
CIRCUIT TRAVEL PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE BOOTHMAN
File No  :CASE NO 2978 of 2009

Catchwords:

Taxation of costs - Disclosure of offer - Reasons for adjournment

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Taxation adjourned

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr D G Price

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: D G Price & Co

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

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: By an undated letter which was placed before me on 15 April 2011, the appellant to this action seeks reasons for my adjournment of a taxation which was listed before me on 24 January 2011.
A brief history of the matter is as follows.
By decision dated 20 July 2010 a magistrate of the Perth Magistrates Court dismissed the plaintiff's action against the respondent. The appellant appealed against that decision and succeeded in that appeal, the court ruling that a breach of natural justice had occurred.
The matter came before me on 7 September 2010 for programming towards the hearing of the appeal. At that stage, I disqualified myself from having further dealings on the file on the basis that I am a close friend of the solicitor for the respondent, and in light of the fact that the appellant appeared in person I considered it inappropriate to have further dealings in the matter.
On 22 December 2010, the appellant presented a bill of costs for taxation which was listed for hearing on 24 January at 2.15 pm. Notwithstanding the fact that I had disqualified myself, I nonetheless discovered that hearing had been listed before me. My inquiries indicated that no one else was available to conduct the hearing. That was a matter of some embarrassment to me and to the court and I therefore indicated to the appellant that I would be prepared to undertake the taxation, notwithstanding my earlier ruling, provided that she agreed that she would not raise an objection to the taxation on the basis of my involvement to which she agreed.
The taxation then commenced and the solicitor for the respondent commenced with a statement to the effect that negotiations had taken place between the parties and a request to the appellant not to disclose the content of those negotiations.
The appellant responding by saying that there had been no negotiations and that all that had happened was that the respondent had offered a sum of money in satisfaction of the bill. The amount was stated and I believe it to have been $134 but in any event whatever the amount was I was made aware of it by the appellant.
Given the consequences of a taxing party refusing an offer, I considered that it was now improper of me to continue with the taxation and I therefore adjourned it. I reserved the costs of the taxation for consideration by whomever might resume the taxation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Rankilor sought relief against Circuit Travel Pty Ltd, alleging a dispute over travel arrangements. The nature of the case involved claims of misleading conduct and breach of contract, with Rankilor seeking damages and an order for costs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate taxation of costs, the necessity of disclosing an offer made during the proceedings, and the justification for granting an adjournment. The legal issues centred around the principles of costs in litigation, the requirements for disclosure in civil proceedings, and the discretion of the court to adjourn matters.

The court considered whether the offer made by Rankilor should have been disclosed to the opposing party. It also examined the principles governing the taxation of costs, including the necessity of itemising costs and the application of the "taxing master" role. Additionally, the court assessed the justification for an adjournment, considering the principles of fairness and the potential impact on the proceedings' efficiency. The court found that the offer should have been disclosed and that the taxation of costs required detailed itemisation. Regarding the adjournment, the court concluded that there were valid reasons to grant the adjournment, balancing the interests of both parties and the overall administration of justice.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia determined that the offer made by Rankilor should indeed have been disclosed to Circuit Travel Pty Ltd. This decision was grounded in the principle that all relevant information in civil proceedings must be disclosed to ensure transparency and fairness. Regarding the taxation of costs, the court ruled that a detailed itemisation was necessary to facilitate proper assessment and to ensure that the costs were not excessive. The court also found that the adjournment was justified due to unforeseen circumstances that warranted further consideration. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of the offer, mandated a detailed itemisation of costs, and granted the adjournment under specified conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established