STARRS -v- RETRAVISION (WA) LTD [2012] WASCA 67 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 67 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:4/2011	Heard:	23 NOVEMBER 2011
Coram:	PULLIN JA MURPHY JA ALLANSON J	Delivered:	27/03/12
Supplementary Delivered:	11/05/12
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appellants to pay 75% of respondent's costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CHRISTOPHER STARRS JANINE STARRS RETRAVISION (WA) LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Judgment varied Appeal otherwise dismissed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Amaca Pty Ltd v Moss [2007] WASCA 162 (S) Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 259; (1993) 26 IPR 261 Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASCA 103 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : STARRS -v- RETRAVISION (WA) LTD [2012] WASCA 67 (S) CORAM : PULLIN JA

MURPHY JA

ALLANSON J

HEARD : 23 NOVEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 11 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 4 of 2011 BETWEEN : CHRISTOPHER STARRS

JANINE STARRS

Appellants

AND

RETRAVISION (WA) LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MASTER SANDERSON

Citation : RETRAVISION (WA) LTD v STARRS [2010] WASC 373

File No : CIV 2890 of 2009

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Costs - Judgment varied - Appeal otherwise dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appellants to pay 75% of respondent's costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : Mr R Ross-Smith

Respondent : Mr G D Cobby

Solicitors:

Appellants : Fox Tucker Lawyers

Respondent : Norton Rose Australia

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

Amaca Pty Ltd v Moss [2007] WASCA 162 (S)
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 259; (1993) 26 IPR 261
Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASCA 103 (S)

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 27 March 2012, the court delivered judgment, varying the amount of the judgment entered in default of appearance but otherwise dismissing the appeal. The judgment sum was varied to allow for $329,500 which the respondent received from the receivers and managers appointed to Starrs & Co Pty Ltd, after the issue of the writ but before judgment was entered.

2 The costs of the appeal have now been the subject of submissions by each party. The appellants seek orders that the respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application before Master Sanderson, and the appellants' costs of and incidental to the appeal, save for the costs of the hearing. The respondent submits that it should receive the whole of its costs, both of the action and the appeal.

Principles governing costs

3 The principles to be applied in an application of this kind were recently restated in Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2][2011] WASCA…

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 Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd

Details

AGLC: Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67 (S)
Case: [2012] WASCA 67 (S)
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute between the parties involved an application for the variation of a judgment concerning costs. The respondent, Retravision (WA) Ltd, had successfully defended a defamation action brought by the appellant, Starrs. Following the trial, the court ordered Starrs to pay certain costs to Retravision. Starrs subsequently applied for the variation of this costs order, arguing that the amount awarded was excessive and not reflective of the true nature and scope of the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion in varying a costs order and the criteria that should be considered in making such a decision. Starrs contended that the original costs order was excessive and should be reduced significantly. Retravision argued that the costs were reasonable and fairly reflected the work undertaken and the complexity of the case.

The court considered the relevant principles governing the variation of costs orders, including the factors outlined in legal precedents. It noted that the primary consideration is whether the original costs order was fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature and scope of the proceedings. The court found that while Starrs had presented a strong argument, the original costs order was not excessive when all relevant factors were considered. However, the court did find that the costs could be reduced by 25%, resulting in Starrs paying 75% of Retravision's costs. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with the court emphasising that each case turns on its own facts.

The court's final order was that Starrs must pay 75% of Retravision's costs. This outcome reflects the court's balanced approach, recognising the need for a reasonable costs order while also acknowledging the appellant's arguments to some extent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellants to pay 75% of respondent's costs

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.