Reynolds v Darwin City Council - [2023] NTSC 60

CITATION:Reynolds v Darwin City Council [2023] NTSC 60
PARTIES:REYNOLDS, Carolyn Jane
v

DARWIN CITY COUNCIL

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2020-02980-SC
DELIVERED:  10 July 2023
HEARING DATE:  On the papers
JUDGMENT OF:  Registrar Blanch

CATCHWORDS:
Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT), r 63.55, r 63.55(3), r 63.55(4), r 63.55(5)
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Self represented
Respondent:  K Dixon
Solicitors:
Appellant:Self represented
Respondent:  Minter Ellison
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Bla2301
Number of pages:  7

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Reynolds v Darwin City Council [2023] NTSC 60

No. 2020-02980-SC

BETWEEN:

CAROLYN JANE REYNOLDS

Appellant

AND:

DARWIN CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

CORAM: REGISTRAR BLANCH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10 July 2023)
Introduction

This is an application by the appellant for reconsideration of a decision I made on 15 May 2023, as the Taxing Master, to allow wholly items in the amended bill of costs filed by respondent on 15 May 2023. By that decision I ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in the total sum of $83,694.78 comprised of the following:
1.Costs and disbursements taxed and allowed in the sum of $71,229.60
2.GST allowed in the sum of $7,122.96
3.Taxing fee in the sum of $5,342.22
Background
Order for costs
The taxation of costs related to a decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 27 June 2022 in which the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs as follows:
1.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings before the Local Court in File No 21934192 on the standard basis, with those costs to be agreed or taxed by the Local Court taxing officer in default of agreement.
2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court in File No 2020-02980-SC on the indemnity basis, with those costs to be agreed or taxed by the Supreme Court taxing officer in default of agreement.
3.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of this appeal on the indemnity basis, with those costs to be agreed or taxed by the Supreme Court taxing officer in default of agreement.
Application to reconsider a taxation of costs decision
Rule 63.55 of the Supreme Court Rules 1987 (the Rules) provides that:
(1)     Where a Taxing Master decides to allow or disallow, wholly or in part, an item in a bill or to allow some amount in respect of an item, a party to the taxation proceeding who objects to the decision may apply to have a Taxing Master reconsider the decision.
(2)     An application under subrule (1) shall be made by written notice to the Taxing Master.
(3)     The notice must be filed within 14 days after the date of the order on taxation that contains the decision.
The relevant date for filing the written notice in this proceeding was 13 June 2023, given that the order on taxation containing the decision was made and distributed to the parties on 30 May 2023.
On 12 June 2023 at 11.32pm, the appellant wrote to the Civil Registry of the Court by email stating that “I am writing to submit an objection and appeal to the Supreme Court Registrars’ orders regarding the Taxation hearing held on 15^th May 2023” and provided a lengthy summation of her medical issues in support of same.
The Registry Manager, Civil Registry of the Court wrote to the appellant by email on 13 June 2023 at 12.02pm, and advised her of the requirements of rule 63.55 of the Rules, which provide that:
(4) The applicant shall file with or subscribe to a notice under subrule (2) a statement of his objections.
(5) A statement of objections referred to in subrule (4) shall specify, by a list, the items as to which the applicant objects to the decision of the Taxing Master and shall state briefly but specifically the nature and grounds of each objection.
On 13 June 2023 at 1.22pm, the appellant wrote to the Civil Registry of the Court by email and requested an extension of time to prepare a statement of objections, citing numerous medical conditions that allegedly made her unfit to prepare the statement as required.
The Registry Manager, Civil Registry of the Court advised by return email at 2.16pm, on the same date, that the appellant would need to provide a medical certificate to support her request for an extension of time. The appellant subsequently emailed a letter from Dr Satbir Aulakh of Top End Medical Centre, dated 5 December 2022, which stated “[m]y patient Carollyn [sic] Reynolds DOB 6/4/66 is suffering from a brain injury and suffering from Malignant Hypertension. It is recommended that she has a Therapy Dog to help her cope with day to day affairs”.
I considered the request and did not grant the appellant an extension of time to file the statement of objections. The medical certificate provided by the appellant did not cover the relevant dates, being from 30 May 2023 (when the parties were provided with the order on taxation containing the decision) to 13 June 2023 (when the notice and statement of objections were to be filed pursuant to rule 63.55(4) with reference to rule 63.55(3) of the Rules).
On 13 June 2023 at 1.51pm, the appellant emailed the Civil Registry of the Court. The email was headed “Subject: Objection, Reconsideration, and Review Request under Section 63.55 of the Procedure on Taxation”. The Registry Manager, Civil Registry of the Court rejected this filing as a statement of objections because it did not comply with rule 63.55(5) of the Rules. The appellant was advised of same via email on 13 June 2023 at 2.29pm.
On 13 June 2023 at 3.04pm, the appellant emailed the Civil Registry of the Court. The email was headed “Subject: Statement of Objection – Taxation Law Order 63.55 Part 5”. Whilst not compliant with rule 63.55(5) of the Rules, it was accepted for filing as a statement of objections, and placed before me with the written notice of objection, to reconsider the decision I made on 15 May 2023.
Reconsideration of taxation decision
The appellant has not complied with the requirements of rule 63.55(5) of the Rules. The appellant has not specified, by a list, the items as to which the appellant objects to the decision of the Taxing Master and it follows that the appellant has not specifically stated the nature and grounds of any objection.
By way of her email, dated 13 June 2023 at 3.04pm, the appellant stated that she objects to the decision on the following grounds:
“… unreasonableness, as it fails to consider my medical inability to respond, my acquired frontal lobe brain injury and the fact that I am a self-represented litigant who was hospitalised on the day of the court proceedings”.
Thereafter, the appellant provides a summary of each of those grounds. The appellant does not reference any specific item or items in the bill of costs that I taxed in my capacity as the Taxing Master.
On 14 June 2023, the appellant provided a further email attaching two medical certificates in support of her application for reconsideration of the taxation of costs decision. The first, prepared by Dr Satbir Aulakh of Top End Medical Centre is dated 5 December 2022, and stated “[m]y patient Carollyn [sic] Reynolds DOB 6/4/66 is suffering from a brain injury and suffering from Malignant Hypertension. It is recommended that she has a Therapy Dog to help her cope with day to day affairs”. The second, prepared by Dr Pradeep Kelum Don of Top End Medical Centre is dated 13 June 2023, and stated “Mrs Carolyn Jane Reynolds has a medical condition and is unfit for work from 13/06/2023 to 13/06/2023 inclusive”.
Clearly, neither medical certificate covers the date of the taxation of costs on 15 May 2023 nor the period to object to the taxation of costs from 30 May 2023 (when the parties were provided with the order on taxation containing the decision) to 13 June 2023 (when the notice and statement of objections were to be filed pursuant to rule 63.55(4) with reference to rule 63.55(3) of the Rules).
For completeness, I note that the appellant has not provided evidence of service of the notice and statement of objections on the respondent and the respondent has not filed answers in writing to the objection filed by the appellant.
Regardless, I did not deem this evidence to be necessary for me to proceed to dismiss the application for reconsideration of the taxation of costs, because it does not comply with rule 63.55 (4) and (5) of the Rules. The appellant has not specified, by a list, the items as to which the appellant objects to my decision as the Taxing Master and it follows that the appellant has not specifically stated the nature and grounds of any objection.
Order
The application by the appellant for reconsideration of a decision I made on 15 May 2023, as the Taxing Master, to allow wholly items in the bill of costs filed by respondent on 22 December 2022 is dismissed.

----------