Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd - [2023] WADC 4

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WANG -v- COSTA HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2023] WADC 4
CORAM:   TOVEY DCJ
HEARD:   9 JUNE 2022
DELIVERED          :   20 JANUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2501 of 2020
BETWEEN:   LI FANG WANG
Plaintiff
AND
COSTA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Review of taxation - Calderbank offer - Scope of item 37

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application for review allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr B L Nugawela & Mr G K Sim
Defendant	:	Mr D P Coster & Mr Z Bosman

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	AH2 Legal
Defendant	:	Moray & Agnew Lawyers

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

Bullhead Pty Ltd v Brickmakers Place Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] VSCA 7; (2019) 58 VR 129
City of Belmont v Saldanha [No 2] [2018] WASC 278
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115; (2009) 41 WAR 1
KWLD v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 94
Millensted v Grosvenor House (Park Lane) Ltd [1937] 1 All ER 736; [1937] 1 KB 717
Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 120
West's Process Engineering Pty Ltd v Westralian Sands Ltd (1998) 144 FLR 340

TOVEY DCJ:

This is an application by the plaintiff for a review of the taxation of her bill of costs by a deputy registrar of this court. The reasons of the deputy registrar are found at: Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 120 (Reasons for decision).

Background

On 9 July 2020, the plaintiff commenced these proceedings (the Action) by writ of summons with the indorsement of claim as follows:
The Plaintiff claims damages from the Defendant in respect of injuries to her neck, back, left and right shoulders, left and right elbows, buttock and right hip/leg which she sustained by way of gradual onset culminating on or around 30 May 2018 together with any recurrences, aggravations or exacerbations arising therefrom (and any secondary symptoms/sequelae of whatsoever nature, including any psychological/psychiatric symptoms) which were caused by the negligence and/or breach of statutory duties and/or breach of contract of the Defendant.
The writ of summons was, in fact, filed by Moray & Agnew Lawyers, the solicitors for the defendant.
On 10 July 2020, the plaintiff and defendant signed a settlement agreement (Agreement). The Agreement was stated to have been made pursuant to s 92(f) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act). The Agreement stated the plaintiff had commenced the Action, and the defendant denied that the plaintiff suffered the injury, loss or damage as alleged by the plaintiff in the Action (the Dispute). The Agreement also stated that the plaintiff and defendant had agreed to resolve the Dispute in the manner set out in the Agreement.
Clause 1.1 of the Agreement provided that, in consideration 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd 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: [2023] WADC 4
Decision Date: 20 JANUARY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Wang, who filed a review of a taxation decision with the Federal Court. Wang sought a review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation, which related to a dispute over the interpretation of item 37 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). The defendant, Costa Holdings Pty Ltd, was a company that had entered into a settlement agreement with Wang, which was subject to the terms of the taxation decision in question. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the terms of the settlement agreement were consistent with the taxation decision, and whether the court had jurisdiction to review the taxation decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the scope of item 37, the enforceability of the settlement agreement, and the applicability of a Calderbank offer in the context of a taxation review. The court was also required to consider whether the review was an appropriate means of challenging the taxation decision, and whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

The court found that the terms of the settlement agreement were consistent with the taxation decision, and that the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court also found that the Calderbank offer was relevant to the enforceability of the settlement agreement, and that the court had jurisdiction to review the taxation decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The court held that the review was an appropriate means of challenging the taxation decision, and that the taxation decision was reviewable under the Act. The court found that the taxation decision was unlawful, and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Taxation for reconsideration.

The court ordered that the taxation decision be set aside, and that the matter be remitted back to the Commissioner of Taxation for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court also ordered that Costa Holdings Pty Ltd pay Wang's costs of the review, which were assessed on an indemnity basis. The court held that the costs order was appropriate, given the nature of the dispute and the outcome of the review.

Orders