Re City of Perth; Ex Parte Lord
[2002] WASCA 254 (S)
•12 SEPTEMBER 2002
RE CITY OF PERTH; EX PARTE LORD & ORS [2002] WASCA 254 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 254 (S) | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:91/2002 | 9 AUGUST 2002 | |
| Coram: | PARKER J TEMPLEMAN J HASLUCK J | 12/09/02 | |
| 10/12/02 | |||
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Costs orders made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KELVIN ERNEST LORD KAMINA HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 178 474) KELDEN SECRETARIAL SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 089 454) ROBERT JEFFREY BAKER VERONICA ANN BAKER CITY OF PERTH KERRYN BOHN ANTHONY BURTON LYNNE SYLVESTER BURTON CHRISTOPHER JAMES UPSTONE PAULA NEILAN MICHAEL PETER LOTYCZUCK PAUL MATTHEW WILSON DARON NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 199 526) REAGENT PTY LTD CHAD BENJAMIN HENVILLE DON COLASANTE ROBERT COLASANTE AMANDA LEE SUNIL VARMA PAUL JAMES BROWN CARRI SOREL BROWN |
Catchwords: | Costs Appellants partly successful, costs apportioned accordingly, Whether a party should escape liability to contribute to costs of the appeal by taking a neutral stance at the hearing |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | R v Liverpool Justices, ex parte Roberts [1960] 1 WLR 585 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE CITY OF PERTH; EX PARTE LORD & ORS [2002] WASCA 254 (S) CORAM : PARKER J
- TEMPLEMAN J
HASLUCK J
DECISION : 10 DECEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 91 of 2002
- FUL 92 of 2002
KELVIN ERNEST LORD
KAMINA HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 178 474)
KELDEN SECRETARIAL SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 089 454)
ROBERT JEFFREY BAKER
VERONICA ANN BAKER
Appellants (Applicants)
AND
CITY OF PERTH
First Respondent (First Respondent)
(Page 2)
- KERRYN BOHN
ANTHONY BURTON
LYNNE SYLVESTER BURTON
CHRISTOPHER JAMES UPSTONE
PAULA NEILAN
MICHAEL PETER LOTYCZUCK
PAUL MATTHEW WILSON
DARON NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 199 526)
REAGENT PTY LTD
CHAD BENJAMIN HENVILLE
DON COLASANTE
ROBERT COLASANTE
AMANDA LEE
SUNIL VARMA
PAUL JAMES BROWN
CARRI SOREL BROWN
Second Respondents (Second Respondents)
Catchwords:
Costs - Appellants partly successful, costs apportioned accordingly, Whether a party should escape liability to contribute to costs of the appeal by taking a neutral stance at the hearing
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Costs orders made
(Page 3)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants (Applicants) : Mr C B Edmonds SC
First Respondent (First Respondent) : Mr A Roberts
Second Respondents (Second Respondents) : Mr R L Le Miere QC
Solicitors:
Appellants (Applicants) : Kott Gunning
First Respondent (First Respondent) : Minter Ellison
Second Respondents (Second Respondents) : Phillips Fox
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
R v Liverpool Justices, ex parte Roberts [1960] 1 WLR 585
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 4)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: When the decision in this matter was delivered on 12 September 2002, the question of costs was reserved so that the parties could make written submissions.
2 Having now considered those submissions, the Court has decided to make the following orders in relation to costs:
(4) The appellants are to be awarded 50 per cent of their taxed costs of the appeals, including reserved costs, taxed as one bill. On taxation there is to be an allowance for Senior Counsel and for solicitor attending. Such costs are to be paid as to one-half by the first respondent and as to the other half, by the second respondents severally.
(5) Each party is to bear its or their own costs in respect of the hearing before Heenan J.
3 Our reasons are as follows.
4 The hearing before Heenan J proved to have been somewhat pointless. Although the present appellants were unsuccessful, they had not then identified the more material of the errors in the first respondent's decision which have now resulted in the quashing of that decision. However, the first respondent contributed materially to the error giving rise to the application: and the second respondent supported the first respondent.
5 In those circumstances, we consider it appropriate that the parties should bear their own costs of the hearing before Heenan J.
6 Although the appellants succeeded on appeal, they did so on issues which emerged only a few days before the hearing. The appellants were unsuccessful in the majority of the issues argued on the appeal and in respect of their application to make substantial amendments to their grounds of appeal.
7 In those circumstances, we consider that the appellants should be awarded one half of their costs, taxed on the scale, but allowing for Senior Counsel and for the attendance of an instructing solicitor.
8 We do not consider that the first respondent should escape from the liability to contribute to the costs of the appeal, even though it adopted a neutral stance at the hearing. The fact that it had contributed materially to the error giving rise to the original application is still a matter to be taken
(Page 5)
- into account: see the decision of the Divisional Court in R v Liverpool Justices, ex parte Roberts [1960] 1 WLR 585.
9 In these circumstances we consider that the appellants' taxed costs should be paid as to one half by the first respondent, and as to the balance, by the second respondents severally.
10 We will allow the appellants to amend their grounds of appeal so as to accord more precisely with our decision on the substantive application.
0