Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [No 2] - [2009] WASCA 78

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: SECURE PARKING (WA) PTY LTD -v- WILSON [No 2] [2009] WASCA 78

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
BUSS JA
MURRAY AJA

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 7 MAY 2009

FILE NO/S: CACV 141 of 2005

BETWEEN: SECURE PARKING (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 073 500 160)
Appellant
AND
ALFRED KARL WILSON
First Respondent
NULLAGINE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 717)
Second Respondent
PARKING ASSET MANAGEMENT (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 092 214 278)
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :LE MIERE J
Citation  :SECURE PARKING (WA) PTY LTD -v- WILSON & ANOR [2005] WASC 264
File No  :CIV 1074 of 2003

Catchwords:

Costs - Orders to be made in relation to costs and other relief - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders made in relation to costs and other relief

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     No appearance (On the papers)
First Respondent           :     No appearance (On the papers)
Second Respondent      :     No appearance (On the papers)
Third Respondent          :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Talbot Olivier
First Respondent           :     Tottle Partners
Second Respondent      :     Su & Co
Third Respondent          :     Clayton Utz

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

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337
Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [2005] WASC 264
Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [2008] WASCA 268

MARTIN CJ: I agree with Buss JA.
BUSS JA: On 19 December 2008, the court delivered judgment in this appeal. By a majority (Martin CJ & Buss JA), the appeal was allowed.
On that date, the court made programming orders for the filing of written submissions concerning the orders as to costs which should be made in relation to the appeal and the proceedings at first instance, and the other orders which should be made in the disposition of the appeal. Counsel who appeared on that date agreed the court should make the relevant orders on the papers.
The first respondent (Mr Wilson) filed written submissions on 16 January 2009, the second respondent (Nullagine) filed written submissions on 12 February 2009, the appellant (Secure Parking) filed written submissions on 27 February 2009, Mr Wilson filed written submissions in reply on 5 March 2009 and Nullagine filed written submissions in reply on 6 March 2009.
The background facts and circumstances are set out in the reasons of the learned trial judge (Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [2005] WASC 264) and in this court's reasons for decision on the appeal (Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [2008] WASCA 268). I will not recount them except to the extent necessary to explain the orders that should be made.

Secure Parking's case in the primary proceedings

In 2003, Secure…

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 Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [No 2] 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: [2009] WASCA 78
Decision Date: 7 MAY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd v Wilson [No 2], the parties involved were Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd, a car park management company, and the respondent, Mr Wilson. The dispute centred on the imposition of parking fines by the company and the subsequent legal proceedings. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the parking fines imposed by Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd were enforceable, and if so, to what extent the company was entitled to recover its costs incurred during the proceedings. The court had to consider the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties, the enforceability of the parking charges, and the principles governing the recovery of costs in civil litigation.

The court determined that the parking charges imposed by Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd were indeed enforceable as they were in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties. The court also found that the company was entitled to recover its costs from Mr Wilson. However, the court exercised its discretion under the relevant legislation to order that Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd pay a portion of its own costs, reflecting the circumstances of the case. The reasoning was that the company had acted unreasonably in certain respects, which warranted a partial costs order against itself.

The final orders of the court included the enforcement of the parking fines against Mr Wilson, with Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd being entitled to recover the fines plus interest. Additionally, the court ordered Secure Parking (WA) Pty Ltd to pay a portion of its own costs, while Mr Wilson was ordered to pay the remaining costs. This decision underscored the importance of the court's discretion in assessing costs orders, ensuring that they are fair and reflect the conduct of the parties involved.

Orders