SIMMONS -v- LOVE [No 2] [2016] WASC 167
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 167 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1303/2014 | 22 MARCH 2016 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 7/06/16 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Review unsuccessful | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PAUL SIMMONS MARISA GIMONDO ROSS MAITLAND LOVE |
Catchwords: | Costs Judicial review Taxing officer Alleged errors of principle Scale items Pleading Reply Consequential amendments Extent of scale allowance for amendments to pleadings Consequential further discovery Allowance for giving extra discovery reduced Objection Objection reviewed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Apache Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Santos Offshore Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 318 (S) Ashwin v Minara Resources Ltd [No 2] [2010] WASC 330 Atwell v Roberts [2013] WASCA 37 (S) Brookvista Pty Ltd v Meloni [2009] WASCA 180 Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S) Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation (t/as Synergy) v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] WASC 469 (S) Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 400 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95 Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Ltd (formerly Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd) v Dampier Port Authority [2007] WASC 87 Mentha as Receiver and Manager of Westgem Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Hughes as Liquidator of Westgem Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] WASC 478 (S) Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155 Scaffidi v Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 146 (S) Simmons v Love [2015] WASC 79 Simmons v Love [2015] WASC 79 (S) Simmons v Love [2015] WASC 79 (S2) Soia v Bennett [2014] WASCA 204 The Fashion Warehouse Pty Ltd v Pola [1984] 1 Qd R 251 The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Brockman Iron Pty Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASC 345 (S) Town of Port Hedland v Hodder [No 2] [2012] WASCA 212 (S) Vella v Bowden [2011] WASCA 158 (S) Verdell Pty Ltd v F & G Nominees Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 58 (S2) WJ Green & Co (1984) Pty Ltd v Tace Pty Ltd [No 4] [2010] WASC 363 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- MARISA GIMONDO
Plaintiffs
AND
ROSS MAITLAND LOVE
Defendant
Catchwords:
Costs - Judicial review - Taxing officer - Alleged errors of principle - Scale items - Pleading - Reply - Consequential amendments - Extent of scale allowance for amendments to pleadings - Consequential further discovery - Allowance for giving extra discovery reduced - Objection - Objection reviewed
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Review unsuccessful
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs : Mr C P Stokes
Defendant : In person
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs :…
Continue reading Simmons v Love [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Simmons v Love [No 2] [2016] WASC 167
- Case
- [2016] WASC 167
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Simmons v Love [No 2] involved the parties, Simmons, the applicant, and Love, the defendant, in a judicial review context. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the taxing officer concerning the costs associated with the proceedings. The central dispute was over alleged errors in principle made by the taxing officer, particularly in relation to the scale items, pleading, reply, consequential amendments, and the extent of the scale allowance for amendments to pleadings. Additionally, the case considered consequential further discovery and the reduction of the allowance for giving extra discovery, which was objected to by the applicant.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant rules and principles governing the taxing officer's decisions. The applicant argued that the taxing officer had erred in principle, leading to an unjustifiable outcome in terms of costs. Specifically, the applicant contested the scale allowance for amendments to pleadings and the reduction of the allowance for giving extra discovery. The court was required to determine whether the taxing officer had correctly applied the rules and principles in making the cost-related decisions.
The court reviewed the objections raised by the applicant and examined the taxing officer's decisions. The court found that the taxing officer had applied the relevant rules and principles correctly. The applicant's objections were deemed not to have merit, and the court upheld the taxing officer's decisions. Consequently, the applicant's review was unsuccessful. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the rules, the context of the amendments, and the principles governing the allowance for discovery.
No further orders were made by the court, as the review was unsuccessful. The decision confirmed the taxing officer's decisions and upheld the costs as determined.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant rules and principles governing the taxing officer's decisions. The applicant argued that the taxing officer had erred in principle, leading to an unjustifiable outcome in terms of costs. Specifically, the applicant contested the scale allowance for amendments to pleadings and the reduction of the allowance for giving extra discovery. The court was required to determine whether the taxing officer had correctly applied the rules and principles in making the cost-related decisions.
The court reviewed the objections raised by the applicant and examined the taxing officer's decisions. The court found that the taxing officer had applied the relevant rules and principles correctly. The applicant's objections were deemed not to have merit, and the court upheld the taxing officer's decisions. Consequently, the applicant's review was unsuccessful. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the rules, the context of the amendments, and the principles governing the allowance for discovery.
No further orders were made by the court, as the review was unsuccessful. The decision confirmed the taxing officer's decisions and upheld the costs as determined.
Orders
Orders of the court
Review unsuccessful
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.