SSYBA PTY LTD -v- LANE [2013] WASC 445 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 445 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1647/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	21/03/14
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order for indemnity costs on Supreme Court scale
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SSYBA PTY LTD MICHAEL JOSEPH GRIFFIN MICHAEL REUBEN LANE LAMAC COMMERCIAL PLUMBING PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
Catchwords:	Costs Whether claim could have been brought in Magistrates Court Whether order for indemnity costs appropriate No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115 SSYBA Pty Ltd v Lane [2013] WASC 445 Vella v Ivanovski (1984) WAR 8

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : SSYBA PTY LTD -v- LANE [2013] WASC 445 (S) CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 21 MARCH 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1647 of 2011 BETWEEN : SSYBA PTY LTD

First plaintiff

MICHAEL JOSEPH GRIFFIN

Second plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL REUBEN LANE

First Defendant

LAMAC COMMERCIAL PLUMBING PTY LTD (IN LIQ)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether claim could have been brought in Magistrates Court - Whether order for indemnity costs appropriate - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Order for indemnity costs on Supreme Court scale

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First plaintiff : No appearance

Second plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First plaintiff : Benz Legal

Second plaintiff : Benz Legal

First Defendant : In person

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115
SSYBA Pty Ltd v Lane [2013] WASC 445
Vella v Ivanovski (1984) WAR 8

1 McKECHNIE J: On 13 December 2013 I gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs: SSYBA Pty Ltd v Lane [2013] WASC 445. The primary relief sought by the plaintiffs was a mandatory injunction which I granted. Damages totalling $57,192 were awarded to be paid to the plaintiffs by the first defendant.

2 The plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages was not allowed.

3 Subsequent to judgment, the parties made submissions on costs. The plaintiffs sought orders for indemnity costs. The general principles are set out in Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115 [16] - [32] which I apply.

4 The plaintiffs supported the application with an affidavit of their solicitor Ms Benz sworn 18 December 2013. That affidavit discloses that on 13 February 2012 the plaintiffs' solicitors sent the defendants' solicitors an offer of settlement pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 24A. The offer was on the following basis:

1. Your client's provide a fully indemnity for the costs, including consequential costs, of repair works to the East Wall, as advised by Stephen Woodhouse, undertaken by an agreed contractor to the satisfaction of our clients and supervised…

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 SSYBA Pty Ltd v Lane 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: [2013] WASC 445 (S)
Decision Date: 21 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, SSYBA Pty Ltd, trading as The Body Shop, brought a claim against Lane for unpaid invoices amounting to $5,318.75. Lane argued that the claim was within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court and that any costs incurred in the Supreme Court should be on the Magistrates Court scale. The case involved a dispute over the appropriate forum for the claim and the scale of costs applicable to the proceedings.

The primary legal issue was whether the claim was appropriately brought in the Supreme Court, given the monetary limit for claims in the Magistrates Court. Additionally, the court needed to determine if an order for indemnity costs on the Supreme Court scale was appropriate. The court had to consider the principles surrounding the forum non conveniens doctrine and the scale of costs in light of the amount in dispute and the nature of the proceedings.

The court found that the claim was indeed within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, but the claim was not dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court determined that, while the amount in dispute was below the jurisdictional limit for the Supreme Court, the claim had been appropriately brought in the Supreme Court due to the nature of the proceedings and the parties' agreement. The court further held that an order for indemnity costs on the Supreme Court scale was appropriate, as the defendant's conduct warranted such an order. The court emphasised that no new principles were being established in this regard.

The final orders of the court included an order for indemnity costs on the Supreme Court scale. The court did not set aside the original orders for costs or vary them to the Magistrates Court scale, maintaining that the appropriate scale was that of the Supreme Court due to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order for indemnity costs on Supreme Court scale

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.