Rodwell v Hutchinson - [2010] WASCA 197

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: RODWELL -v- HUTCHINSON [2010] WASCA 197

CORAM: PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 10 AUGUST 2010

DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2010

FILE NO/S: CACV 161 of 2009

BETWEEN: ALAN STANLEY RODWELL
JAN ALETHEA ROBERTSON
Appellants
AND
ANTHONY JOHN HUTCHINSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :GOETZE DCJ
Citation  :RODWELL & ANOR -v- HUTCHINSON [2009] WADC 180
File No  :BRO APP 1 of 2008

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Indemnity costs - Whether Magistrates Court has power to award indemnity costs - Whether Magistrates Court has power to make special order as to costs under s 215(2) of Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA)

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 210, s 215, s 221
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 25

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants: In person (Ms J A Robertson)
Respondent: Ms M L Coulson

Solicitors:

Appellants: In person
Respondent: Eagle & Partners

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

Colgate‑Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95
Grassby v The Queen [1989] HCA 45; (1989) 168 CLR 1
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service [1995] HCA 36; (1995) 184 CLR 301
Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] HCA 44; (1998) 195 CLR 184
Re Malley SM; Ex Parte Gardner [2001] WASCA 83
Rodwell v Hutchinson [2009] WADC 180
Sansom Nominees Pty Ltd v Meade [2005] WASC 9(S)
Unioil International Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [No 2] (1997) 18 WAR 190

PULLIN JA: I agree with Newnes JA.
NEWNES JA: This is an appeal from a decision of Goetze DCJ in the District Court dismissing the appellants' appeal from the decision of a magistrate who refused to award indemnity costs to the appellants following their success in proceedings in the Magistrates Court: Rodwell v Hutchinson [2009] WADC 180. The appellants contend that the primary judge erred in finding that the Magistrates Court had no power to award indemnity costs.

Background

The appellants brought proceedings in the Magistrates Court claiming the sum of $45,755.58 for work carried out on a property owned by the respondent and located at Waterbank, north of Broome. While the work was carried out the appellants resided in a shed on the property. It appears the respondent did not contest the amount claimed by the appellants for the work but counterclaimed an amount of $47,600 by way of rental for the appellants' occupation of the shed. The action went to trial on 27 September 2007.
In a reserved decision delivered on 5 December 2007, the magistrate rejected the respondent's assertion that there was an agreement the appellants…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rodwell v Hutchinson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] WASCA 197
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodwell v Hutchinson involved a dispute between the parties in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The nature of the dispute was centred around the awarding of indemnity costs and the court's power to make a special order as to costs under section 215(2) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). The plaintiff sought indemnity costs from the defendant, arguing that the Magistrates Court had the necessary jurisdiction to award such costs. The defendant contested this, asserting that the court lacked the power to make such an order.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the Magistrates Court has the inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs. Secondly, whether the court has the power to make a special order as to costs under section 215(2) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). The plaintiff argued that the court's power to award costs should include the ability to grant indemnity costs, as it is a fundamental principle of justice that a party should not be left to bear the costs of legal proceedings that they did not cause. The defendant contended that the court's power to award costs is limited to the costs incurred in the proceedings themselves, and that indemnity costs are a discretionary remedy that should only be granted by higher courts.

The court considered the relevant statutory and common law principles. It concluded that the Magistrates Court does not have the inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs, as this power is typically reserved for higher courts. However, the court did find that it has the power to make a special order as to costs under section 215(2) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), as this provision allows for the court to order costs in any manner it considers just. The court found that in this instance, it was appropriate to make a special order as to costs, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for a just outcome. The court's decision thus affirmed that while the Magistrates Court cannot award indemnity costs as a matter of inherent jurisdiction, it does have the power to make a special order as to costs in certain circumstances.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, but did not grant indemnity costs. The court's final orders reflected its finding that while it could not award indemnity costs, it could make a special order as to costs under the relevant statutory provision. This decision provides clarity on the scope of the Magistrates Court's power to award costs, and underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when making such orders.

Orders