Singleton v Bobadilla
[2014] ACTSC 324
•7 November 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Singleton v Bobadilla |
Citation: | [2014] ACTSC 324 |
Hearing Date: | 7 November 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 7 November 2014 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | The appeal is allowed. The order of the Magistrate with respect to costs is set aside, and in substitution there is an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the Magistrate and also the costs of the appellant in the current proceedings. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Appeals From and Control Over Magistrates – question of costs – failure to give reasons for decision – appeal upheld |
Legislation Cited: | Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) s 136 (3) |
Parties: | Katie Singleton (Appellant) Eugenio Bobadilla (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr Pappas (Appellant) Mr Muller (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Appellant) Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SCA 49 of 2014 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Cook Date of Decision: 10 June 2014 Case Title: Eugenio Bobadilla v Katie Singleton Court File Number(s): AP No 2020 of 2014 |
Burns J:
On 11 April this year, an originating application was lodged in the ACT Magistrates Court by the appellant in the current proceedings seeking orders that, pursuant to s 136 (3) of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), the respondent participate in a compulsory conference to be held at the office of the applicant’s solicitors at 10 am on Wednesday, 28 May 2014. The appellant also sought orders that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and associated with the application before the Magistrates Court.
That application was returnable before the Magistrates Court on 6 May 2014. As I understand it, on 6 May the matter was adjourned and ultimately it came back before the Magistrates Court on 10 June 2014, at which time the respondent consented to the orders that were sought by the appellant concerning the holding of a compulsory conference. The matter proceeded before the Magistrate on 10 June this year, principally on the question of costs. After hearing counsel for both parties, the Magistrate made no order as to costs. Unfortunately, the Magistrate gave nothing by way of discernible reasons for making the order that he did. It is accepted, and I think rightly accepted, by Mr Muller, who appears on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, that the Magistrate was in error insofar as he did not give reasons for the decision which he then gave as to costs in the application.
The present proceedings are an appeal from the Magistrate in which the appellant seeks an order of costs in her favour, not only in the proceedings before the Magistrate but also in the current proceedings. I have had the benefit of written submissions by the appellant and the respondent and I have also had the benefit of hearing counsel with respect to the present application.
Having determined that the Magistrate was in error in providing no reasons for his decision, I am entitled to exercise my own discretion in relation to the question of costs. In my opinion, the appropriate costs order is that the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the Magistrate and of the current proceedings. I say that on the basis that the proceedings before the Magistrate were stand-alone proceedings and the appellant was entirely successful in those proceedings.
In my opinion, the reason given by the respondent’s lawyers for failing to agree to the holding of a compulsory conference prior to the proceedings being lodged in the Magistrates Court and then subsequently heard by the Magistrate was not such that the Magistrate, or indeed this Court, would be entitled or justified in withholding an order for costs from the successful party, being the appellant. I note in that regard that the chronology which has been provided to me as part of the respondent’s written submissions notes that a report from Dr McNichol, which was originally one of the reasons why the respondent did not consent to the order being sought by the appellant when it was first before the Court, was received on 3 April 2014, some eight days before the application was filed in the Magistrates Court.
It may well be, and I accept it to be the case, that the solicitor who then appeared in the Magistrates Court on 6 May 2014 was mistakenly of the belief that the report from Dr McNichol had not been received, but again that is a matter which should not deprive the successful party in the proceedings before the Magistrate of her costs.
The orders that I make are that the appeal will be allowed and the order of the Magistrate with respect to costs will be set aside, and in substitution there will be an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the Magistrate and also the costs of the appellant in the current proceedings.
| I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns. Associate: Date: |
0
0
2