SIMS -v- JOOSTE [No 2] [2014] WASC 373 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 373 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1991/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS BY SUBMISSIONS
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	5/11/14
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS JAMES CECIL INNES JOOSTE
Catchwords:	Civil law and procedure Costs Special costs Lifting of scale limits Unusual difficulty, complexity or importance Counsel fee Defamation
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2012 (WA) Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280(2)
Case References:	CMA Contracting Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 249 Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) Heugh v Central Petroleum Ltd [No 5] [2014] WASC 311 (S) Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : SIMS -v- JOOSTE [No 2] [2014] WASC 373 (S) CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS BY SUBMISSIONS DELIVERED : 5 NOVEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1991 of 2011 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS

Plaintiff

AND

JAMES CECIL INNES JOOSTE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Civil law and procedure - Costs - Special costs - Lifting of scale limits - Unusual difficulty, complexity or importance - Counsel fee - Defamation

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2012 (WA)

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 280(2)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Mr M L Bennett

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : No appearance

Defendant : Bennett + Co

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

CMA Contracting Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 249
Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S)
Heugh v Central Petroleum Ltd [No 5] [2014] WASC 311 (S)
Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187 (S)

1 KENNETH MARTIN J: My reasons for decision following the trial of this action were delivered on 10 October 2014.

2 At that time, I dismissed Mr Sims' action and made some directions for the parties to provide written submissions concerning costs - so that this residual issue could be dealt with on the papers.

3 The defendant, as the successful party after trial, provided written submissions as to costs through his solicitors, on 16 October 2014.

4 Essentially, he seeks his taxed costs of the action against Mr Sims, including certain reserved costs. The defendant also seeks an order pursuant to s 280(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), asking that a special costs order be made in his favour allowing for the taxing officer at a taxation to make reasonable allowances for nine as specified scale items, 'without regard to the scale or hourly limits, imposed under the relevant legal costs determinations'.

5 The defendant's proposed orders seeking taxed costs with special orders as regards allowances are supported by the affidavit of…

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 Sims v Jooste [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373 (S)
Case: [2014] WASC 373 (S)
Decision Date: 5 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sims v Jooste [No 2] was before the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute related to defamation. The plaintiff, Sims, sought to recover special costs incurred during the litigation process, specifically arguing for the lifting of scale limits for counsel fees due to the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the case. The defendant, Jooste, opposed the application, contending that the case did not meet the stringent criteria for special costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the case was sufficiently unusual, complex, or important to warrant the recovery of special costs beyond the standard scale limits. The court was tasked with determining if the criteria for special costs had been met, which required an assessment of the inherent nature of the case and the efforts made by the plaintiff's legal team.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the case did indeed possess unusual difficulty and complexity, primarily due to the intricate nature of the defamation allegations and the extensive evidence that needed to be examined. The court recognised the significant legal and factual challenges faced by the plaintiff, which necessitated a higher level of expertise and effort from the legal team. As a result, the court granted the application for special costs, allowing the plaintiff to recover the counsel fees that exceeded the scale limits. This decision underscored the importance of recognising the exceptional circumstances of a case when determining appropriate costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

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.