SIMMONS -v- LOVE [2015] WASC 79 (S2)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 79 (S2)
Case No:	CIV:1303/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	8/12/15
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL SIMMONS MARISA GIMONDO ROSS MAITLAND LOVE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Slip rule Costs orders Whether costs orders should be amended
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 10
Case References:	Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corporation [No 2] [2013] WASC 16

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : SIMMONS -v- LOVE [2015] WASC 79 (S2) CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 8 DECEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1303 of 2014 BETWEEN : PAUL SIMMONS

MARISA GIMONDO

Plaintiffs

AND

ROSS MAITLAND LOVE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Slip rule - Costs orders - Whether costs orders should be amended

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 10

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : No appearance (on the papers)

Defendant : No appearance (on the papers)

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Chris Stokes & Associates

Defendant : Metaxas & Hager

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

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corporation [No 2] [2013] WASC 16

BEECH J

Introduction

1 The Seller applies under the slip rule for an order amending an order as to costs. For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the application.

Background

2 On 20 March 2015, I made costs orders in this action. Relevantly, my orders were that:

(1) the Seller pay the Buyers' costs of the action up to and including 10 November 2014, such costs to be taxed if not agreed;

(2) the Buyers pay the Seller's costs of the action from 11 November 2014, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

3 Those costs orders were made after a trial of the action. I delivered reasons on the trial on 6 March 2015.1

4 At the time that judgment was delivered on the trial, the parties were agreed that directions should be made for the exchange of submissions as to costs. Following the delivery of the judgment on 6 March 2015, there was some exchange between court and counsel as to the appropriate approach to the question of costs. From the court's perspective, the exchange occurred with a view to exploring whether the parties might be able to reach an agreed position as to the costs of the trial.

5 In the course of the exchange, I made an observation to the effect that it would not be expected that the costs in favour of the Buyers up to 10 November 2014 would exceed the costs of the Seller for the period after 11 November 2014.2

The Seller's application

6 Based upon that observation, the Seller applies under the slip rule for…

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 Simmons v Love

Details

AGLC: Simmons v Love [2015] WASC 79 (S2)
Case: [2015] WASC 79 (S2)
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simmons v Love was a matter heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Simmons, and the defendant, Love, regarding the costs incurred in the proceedings. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to amend an earlier costs order, arguing that the initial order was incorrect and should be adjusted. The court was tasked with determining whether the costs orders should indeed be amended.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend the costs orders. The court had to consider the principles surrounding the slip rule, which generally allows for corrections of obvious errors in judgments or orders, and whether the circumstances of this case warranted such an amendment. The plaintiff argued that the initial costs order contained palpable errors, while the defendant contended that any errors were not obvious and thus should not be amended.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the errors alleged by the plaintiff were not as clear-cut as required for an amendment under the slip rule. The court held that the errors did not rise to the level of obvious mistakes that would justify amending the costs orders. Consequently, the plaintiff's application to amend the costs orders was dismissed. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that amendments under the slip rule should only be made for manifest errors, and the alleged errors in this case did not meet that standard.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.