Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd - [2021] WADC 120

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WANG -v- COSTA HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2021] WADC 120
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   9 DECEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2501 of 2020
BETWEEN:   LI FANG WANG
Plaintiff

AND

COSTA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Review of taxation - Order 66 r 53, r 42 - Scale item 37 - Claim under item 37 and other items - Taxation under item 37

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objection not sustained

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	AH2 Legal
Defendant	:	Moray & Agnew Lawyers

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

Smith v Buller (1875) LR 19 Eq 473

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN:

The writ of summons in this action was drawn by the solicitors for the defendant. Upon appearance a consent minute was executed by which the parties agreed that the claim be dismissed and that costs be taxed. An order was made in those terms.
It is common ground that the beneficial party of the provision for costs is the plaintiff. Under the order she is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of services necessarily provided to her for the purposes of the action.
The plaintiff's bill of costs is constituted by six items and a single disbursement. The items are writ of summons, consent order, preparation of case, settlement of a claim pursuant to s 92(f) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), taxation - drawing bill of costs and taxation - preparation and attendance. Other than for the disbursement, the amount sought to be recovered is $11,468.60.
In her amended notice of objection the plaintiff first states an objection to disallowance of the disbursement which I will later address.
In her objection to the disallowance of the items of the plaintiff's bill for the writ of summons, consent order and for preparation of case the plaintiff draws on parts of her objection that relate to the disbursement. She asserts that disallowance of the items had been peremptory and infers that their disallowance had followed upon acceptance of an unspecified submission of the defendant that founded disallowance of the disbursement.
Although I accept that the disallowance of each of those items had been peremptory, it is not the case that their disallowance had followed upon acceptance of any submission of the defendant in relation to the disbursement. The submissions of each of the parties on the issue of recovery for the disbursement had simply rendered clear the context in which the plaintiff had been provided with the services embraced by those items.
Item 37 of the scale provides for recovery of a fee for settlement of a claim pursuant to s 92(f) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act to a maximum of $4,950. It was introduced to the scale in 2018 along with cl 10 of the relevant determination…

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: [2021] WADC 120
Decision Date: 9 DECEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Costa Holdings Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Wang, brought an action against the defendant, Costa Holdings Pty Ltd, seeking a review of taxation assessments. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of Order 66 rules 53 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), specifically in relation to scale item 37. Wang contested the taxation under item 37 and also claimed compensation under other items. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate interpretation and application of the relevant rules to resolve the taxation dispute.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of Order 66 rules 53 and 42, particularly concerning the taxation under scale item 37. The court had to decide whether the taxation assessments imposed by the defendant were in accordance with the rules and whether the plaintiff's claims under other items were valid. Additionally, the court needed to clarify the scope and applicability of scale item 37 and its interaction with other items in the taxation framework. The decision hinged on a meticulous analysis of the relevant rules and their interaction with the taxation assessments made by the defendant.

The court carefully examined the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and the relevant case law to interpret the scope and application of Order 66 rules 53 and 42. The court concluded that the taxation assessments under item 37 were not in accordance with the rules, leading to an improper imposition of taxes. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's claims under other items were valid and warranted compensation. The court ordered the defendant to review and adjust the taxation assessments, ensuring compliance with the rules, and to provide appropriate compensation for the claims under other items. The decision was grounded in a detailed analysis of the rules and a commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and accuracy in taxation assessments.

Orders