Rodwell v Hutchinson - [2009] WADC 180

RODWELL & ANOR -v- HUTCHINSON [2009] WADC 180

Last Update: 16/04/2010

RODWELL & ANOR -v- HUTCHINSON [2009] WADC 180
Link to Appeal:	[2010] WASCA 197
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2009] WADC 180
Case No:	BRO APP:1/2008	Heard:	8 SEPTEMBER 2009
Coram:	GOETZE DCJ	Delivered:	20/11/2009
Location:	BROOME	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ALAN STANLEY RODWELL JAN ALETHEA ROBERTSON ANTHONY JOHN HUTCHINSON
Catchwords:	Appeal from Magistrate's decision not to award indemnity costs to successful plaintiffs following trial Statutory power to award indemnity costs against the defendant Exercise of discretion to award indemnity costs
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 Legal Practice Act 2003, s 215 Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 Supreme Court Act 1935
Case References:	Collins v Westralian Sands Ltd (1993) 9 WAR 56 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (2003) 28 WAR 95 Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey & Ors [2001] WASCA 240 Naidoo v Williamson (2008) 37 WAR 516 Nathan v Western Atlas International Inc [2006] WADC 70 Schmidt v Gilmour [1988] WAR 219 Stobbart v Mocnaj & Ors [1999] WASC 252 Unioil International Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (No 2) (1997) 18 WAR 190

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : BROOME CITATION : RODWELL & ANOR -v- HUTCHINSON [2009] WADC 180 CORAM : GOETZE DCJ HEARD : 8 SEPTEMBER 2009 DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2009 FILE NO/S : BRO APP 1 of 2008

MATTER : IN THE MATTER of an appeal brought pursuant to Part 6 of the District Court Rules 2005 BETWEEN : ALAN STANLEY RODWELL

JAN ALETHEA ROBERTSON

Appellants

AND

ANTHONY JOHN HUTCHINSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrate's decision not to award indemnity costs to successful plaintiffs following trial - Statutory power to award indemnity costs against the defendant - Exercise of discretion to award indemnity costs

(Page 2)

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969
Legal Practice Act 2003, s 215
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004
Supreme Court Act 1935

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : Mr D J Garnsworthy

Respondent : Mr R L Eagle

Solicitors:

Appellants : Not applicable

Respondent : Eagle & Partners

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

Collins v Westralian Sands Ltd (1993) 9 WAR 56
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (2003) 28 WAR 95
Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey & Ors [2001] WASCA 240
Naidoo v Williamson (2008) 37 WAR 516
Nathan v Western Atlas International Inc [2006] WADC 70
Schmidt v Gilmour [1988] WAR 219
Stobbart v Mocnaj & Ors [1999] WASC 252
Unioil International Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (No 2) (1997) 18 WAR 190

(Page 3)

GOETZE DCJ

Introduction

1 Mr Rodwell and Ms Robertson were successful plaintiffs against the defendant, Mr Hutchinson, at trial in the Magistrates Court at Broome. His Honour Magistrate W Tarr ordered…

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.

Continue reading Rodwell v Hutchinson

Details

AGLC: Rodwell v Hutchinson [2009] WADC 180
Case: [2009] WADC 180
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rodwell v Hutchinson, the parties involved were the plaintiffs, Rodwell, and the defendant, Hutchinson. The dispute centred around the Magistrate's decision not to award indemnity costs to the successful plaintiffs following a trial. The matter was brought before the court to challenge the Magistrate's exercise of discretion in declining to award such costs. The court was tasked with examining whether the statutory power to award indemnity costs against the defendant was correctly exercised.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate exercise of the statutory discretion in determining whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the successful plaintiffs. This involved a detailed analysis of the statutory framework governing indemnity costs, as well as an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case. The court had to consider whether the Magistrate's decision was reasonable and justifiable in light of the statutory provisions and the particular facts of the case.

The court reviewed the statutory provisions and the Magistrate's decision, finding that the Magistrate had exercised the discretion within the bounds of the statutory authority. The court concluded that the decision not to award indemnity costs was a reasonable exercise of the statutory discretion, taking into account the nature of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the overall circumstances. The court found no error in the Magistrate's decision and upheld the appeal's dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Magistrate's decision not to award indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.