RANKILOR -v- CITY OF SOUTH PERTH [2016] WASCA 28 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 28 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:100/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BUSS JA NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	30/03/16
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to set aside costs order dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WENDY RANKILOR CITY OF SOUTH PERTH
Catchwords:	Costs Appeal dismissed Application to set aside costs order in favour of respondent No reason to depart from usual order as to costs
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 28

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : RANKILOR -v- CITY OF SOUTH PERTH [2016] WASCA 28 (S) CORAM : BUSS JA

NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 100 of 2014 BETWEEN : WENDY RANKILOR

Appellant

AND

CITY OF SOUTH PERTH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : DAVIS DCJ

Citation : RANKILOR -v- CITY OF SOUTH PERTH [2014] WADC 110

File No : CIV 13 of 2013

Catchwords:

Costs - Appeal dismissed - Application to set aside costs order in favour of respondent - No reason to depart from usual order as to costs

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application to set aside costs order dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : On the papers

Respondent : On the papers

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : John Eller

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

Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 28

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application by the appellant to set aside a costs order made against her following the dismissal of her appeal.

2 On 12 February 2016, this court dismissed an appeal by the appellant from a decision of Davis DCJ in the District Court who had dismissed two appeals by the appellant, one from a decision of Deputy Registrar Harman and the other from a decision of Deputy Registrar Hewitt: Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 28. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to this court. As the appellant did not attend when the court delivered judgment on the appeal, despite having been given prior notice of the time and date of judgment delivery, an order was made that the appellant have liberty to apply by 4.00 pm on 17 February 2016 to set aside or vary the costs order.

3 In an email to the court dated 14 February 2016, the appellant said that she was in Melbourne visiting relatives and sought an extension of time to 29 February 2016 to apply to set aside the costs order. That extension was allowed.

4 The appellant's application was filed on 29 February 2016, accompanied by an affidavit of the same date. It is unnecessary to canvass the contents of the affidavit. Suffice it to say that the appellant's only material contention is that this court was in error in dismissing the appeal. That is not a basis upon which the costs order might be altered. It is a matter that, if it is to be pursued, can be pursued only by way of an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal - a course the appellant says in the affidavit that she intends to take. As matters stand, the respondent was the successful party on the appeal and there is nothing before us that might justify a departure from the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to an order for costs.

5 The application is dismissed.

The case of Rankilor v City of South Perth involved a dispute between the applicant, Rankilor, and the respondent, the City of South Perth. The primary issue was whether the City of South Perth was entitled to a costs order against the applicant, Rankilor, following the dismissal of an application for judicial review. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had to determine the legal basis for granting or setting aside the costs order.

The court was required to consider whether the usual order as to costs should be departed from, given that the City of South Perth was the successful party in the judicial review application. The applicant argued that the City of South Perth should not be granted costs due to the nature of the proceedings and the lack of any exceptional circumstances that would warrant such an order. The court had to weigh the arguments and decide whether the City of South Perth's position warranted a departure from the usual order as to costs.

The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to depart from the usual order as to costs, which generally favours the successful party. The court found that the City of South Perth was entitled to the costs awarded to them, as there were no exceptional circumstances present that would justify setting aside the costs order. The application to set aside the costs order was dismissed, and the usual order as to costs was upheld.

Rankilor v City of South Perth

RANKILOR -v- CITY OF SOUTH PERTH [2016] WASCA 28 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established