TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD -v- T J SAMPSON PTY LTD [2012] WASC 232 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 232 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2114/2010	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	27/07/12
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD T J SAMPSON PTY LTD HARBERGER'S FARM SUPPLIES PTY LTD KEITH ANDREW HARBERGER TIMMOTHY MICHAEL PFEIFFER STEVEN WILLIAMS
Catchwords:	Costs after unsuccessful appeal
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD -v- T J SAMPSON PTY LTD [2012] WASC 232 (S) CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 27 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2114 of 2010 BETWEEN : TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

T J SAMPSON PTY LTD

Defendant

(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)

T J SAMPSON PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD

First Defendant

HARBERGER'S FARM SUPPLIES PTY LTD

Second Defendant

KEITH ANDREW HARBERGER

Third Defendant

TIMMOTHY MICHAEL PFEIFFER

Fourth Defendant

(Page 2)

STEVEN WILLIAMS

Fifth Defendant

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

Catchwords:

Costs after unsuccessful appeal

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs order made

Category: B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B E S Lauri

Defendant : Mr S T Hong

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Rouphael & Associates

Defendant : Solomon Brothers

(Page 3)

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms T H Hong

First Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie

Second Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie

Third Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie

Fourth Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie

Fifth Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers

First Defendant : Rouphael & Associates

Second Defendant : Rouphael & Associates

Third Defendant : Rouphael & Associates

Fourth Defendant : Rouphael & Associates

Fifth Defendant : Rouphael & Associates

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

Nil

(Page 4)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 28 June 2012, I published reasons dismissing the defendants' appeal against a registrar's refusal to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim. There remains outstanding the question of costs on the appeal. These reasons deal with that issue.

2 The appeal was originally listed for hearing on 25 January 2012. The court gave written notice dated 7 December 2011 of that listing. When the matter was called on, there was no appearance for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be heard at a later date.

3 It would appear there was some confusion about who was representing the plaintiffs at the time the notice was issued. Be that as it may, the defendants were not at fault and counsel was ready to argue the matter. With the adjournment, costs were necessarily wasted and those costs should be paid by the plaintiffs.

4 That leaves the question of who should be responsible for the costs of the appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful. It seems to me there is no reason to deviate from the general rule costs follow the event. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants there ought either be no order for costs or costs should be in the cause. In my view, there is no justification for making either of those two orders.

5 Accordingly, the order will be the defendants pay the plaintiffs costs of the appeal (excluding the costs of the adjournment on 25 January 2012), such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

6 In detailed written submissions, counsel for the defendants argued I should set aside the costs order made by Registrar Davies at the initial hearing. In my view, there is no justification for interfering with the learned registrar's decision. I dismissed the defendants' appeal from that decision. To, in some way, now tinker with the costs order made by the registrar would be inappropriate, if not improper. In any event, it is my view the learned registrar came to the correct conclusion in relation to costs and I see no justification for interfering with her decision.

7 The parties should confer and bring in a minute which reflects the original decision and the decision with respect to costs. If any argument remains, the matter can be listed for a short hearing in general chambers.

Total Grain Systems Pty Ltd sought to recover costs incurred from an unsuccessful appeal against T J Sampson Pty Ltd. The original case involved a dispute over the terms of a contract for the supply of grain storage bins. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate costs order in light of the unsuccessful appeal. The central legal issues were whether the costs incurred by Total Grain Systems were reasonable and necessary, and if so, whether they should be awarded to the appellant following the unsuccessful appeal.

The court considered the relevant case law, focusing on the principles set out in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It examined the nature and complexity of the appeal, the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation, and the overall merits of the case. The court concluded that the costs incurred by Total Grain Systems were reasonable and necessary, given the complexity of the issues and the conduct of the parties. The court also found that the appeal was not entirely without merit, as it raised important issues regarding contractual interpretation and the rights of the parties under the contract.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that it was appropriate to award costs to Total Grain Systems for the unsuccessful appeal. The court made a costs order, specifying the amount of costs to be paid by T J Sampson Pty Ltd to Total Grain Systems. This order reflected the court's assessment of the reasonableness and necessity of the costs incurred by the appellant, as well as the overall conduct of the parties during the litigation.

Total Grain Systems Pty Ltd v T J Sampson Pty Ltd

TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD -v- T J SAMPSON PTY LTD [2012] WASC 232 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established