Waybecca Pty Ltd v Vella
[2019] VSC 306
•10 May 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
S CI 2017 02472
| WAYBECCA PTY LTD (ACN 143 303 511) | Applicant |
| v | |
| JOSEPH VELLA | First Respondent |
| and | |
| RICHARD GIZA | Second Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Richards J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 March 2019 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 10 May 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Waybecca Pty Ltd v Vella |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 306 |
---
COSTS – Review of taxation of costs by Costs Court under former r 63.57, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – No error established – Review dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | No appearance | Falcone & Adams Lawyers |
| For the First Respondent | No appearance | |
| For the Second Respondent | In person |
HER HONOUR:
The second respondent, Richard Giza, seeks review of orders and reasons for decision of Associate Justice Wood, made in the Costs Court. The review arises from a summons for taxation of costs filed by the applicant, Waybecca Pty Ltd, on 29 June 2017. Two bills of costs served with the summons were assessed by Costs Registrar Walton on 19 September 2017. Mr Giza sought review of that order, which was dismissed by Judicial Registrar Gourlay on 14 March 2018. Mr Giza did not accept that decision and sought a further review, which was dismissed by Associate Justice Wood on 10 September 2018. On that day his Honour also dismissed Mr Giza’s summons of 6 February 2018, seeking orders that the summons for taxation be dismissed due to alleged breaches of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) by Waybecca and its lawyers.
Waybecca’s summons for taxation related to costs orders that were made in two proceedings in the Supreme Court (appeal proceedings). The first was proceeding S CI 2014 03536, in the Trial Division, an appeal by the first respondent, Joseph Vella, from orders of the Magistrates’ Court made in June 2014. That proceeding was dismissed by Associate Justice Lansdowne on 30 November 2015.[1] The second proceeding, S APCI 2016 0002, was Mr Giza’s appeal to the Court of Appeal. That proceeding was dismissed effective 9 September 2016, by a self-executing order made on 1 August 2016.[2] The procedural history of the appeal proceedings is summarised in Associate Justice Wood’s reasons for decision.[3]
[1]Vella v Waybecca Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] VSC 678.
[2]Giza v Waybecca Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 184.
[3]Waybecca Pty Ltd v Vella [2018] VSC 492 (Reasons), [1]-[3]. More detail is provided in Judicial Registrar Gourlay’s reasons for decision dated 14 March 2018, at [1]-[6] and in the Court of Appeal’s reasons for decision dated 22 April 2016, at [4]-[14].
The dispute that gave rise to all of this litigation concerns a contract for the sale of a parking space by Mr Vella to Waybecca in 2012. Mr Vella did not complete the sale, and Waybecca sought specific performance of the contract in the Magistrates’ Court. A detailed account of the dispute can be found in the reasons for decision of Associate Justice Lansdowne[4] and the Court of Appeal.[5] Mr Giza now claims to be the owner of the parking space, pursuant to a document signed by Mr Vella and Mr Giza and dated 13 April 2016.
[4]Vella v Waybecca Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] VSC 678, [23]-[36].
[5]Giza v Waybecca Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 78, [4]-[14].
As I explained to Mr Giza at the start of the review hearing before me, the appeal proceedings were finalised when the High Court refused special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision of 1 August 2016.[6] I understand that Mr Giza remains unhappy about many aspects of the appeal proceedings, but they are at an end. I have no power to go behind any of the orders, including the costs orders, made in the appeal proceedings.
[6]Giza v Waybecca Pty Ltd [2016] HCASL 314. See also Giza v Waybecca Pty Ltd [2016] HCASL 241, in relation to the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision refusing extensions of time and refusing a stay of a costs order made by Lansdowne AsJ.
All I am concerned with here is Mr Giza’s review of Associate Justice Wood’s decision. It concerns the assessment of the two bills of costs served with Waybecca’s summons for taxation. The first bill, in relation to proceeding S CI 2014 03536, was for a total of $57,790.76. Costs Registrar Walton taxed and assessed that bill at $53,274.02. The second bill, in relation to proceeding S APCI 2016 0002, was for a total of $38,117.75. The Costs Registrar taxed and assessed that bill at $31,579.50. Associate Justice Wood found no error in either assessment, and also found that there were no grounds that would justify dismissing the Costs Court proceeding.
This review is brought under r 63.57 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Rules).[7] That rule provided:
[7]Rule 63.57 was repealed effective 1 October 2018 by the Supreme Court (Chapter I Costs Court Amendment) Rules 2018. The repeal does not affect this review, which was commenced on 21 September 2018.
Review by Judge of the Court
(1) An order of the Costs Court under Rule 63.56.1(5) or Rule 63.56.4(7) may be reviewed by a Judge of the Court.
(2) If any party interested objects to an order of the Costs Court under Rule 63.56.1(5) or Rule 63.56.4(7), a Judge of the Court, on the application of that party, may review the order if the Costs Court has given reasons under Rule 63.56.1(7) or Rule 63.56.4(8).
(3) An application under paragraph (2) shall be made by notice.
(4) The notice shall—
(a) state by a list each item in the bill in respect of which the party objects to the order of the Costs Court on the review; and
(b) state specifically and concisely the grounds of objection to that order and the order sought in its place.
(5) Within 14 days after the making of the order of the Costs Court or the giving of reasons, whichever is the later—
(a) the notice under paragraph (3) shall be filed; and
(b) a copy of the notice shall be served on each party interested.
(6) On the review, unless the Judge of the Court otherwise orders—
(a) further evidence shall not be received;
(b) the party giving notice shall not raise any ground of objection not stated in the notice.
(7) On the review, the Judge of the Court may—
(a) exercise all the powers and discretions of the Costs Court with respect to the subject matter of the review;
(b) confirm, set aside or vary the order of the Costs Court or make such further or other order as may be necessary;
(c) remit any item in the bill to the Costs Court;
(d) make any other order the case requires.
(8) Except so far as a Judge of the Court or a Costs Judge otherwise orders, a review under this Rule shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the order of the Costs Court to which the review relates.
The principles governing a review of a taxation of costs were summarised by the Court of Appeal in Anglo-Italian Holdings Pty Ltd v Varallo:[8]
Although a number of earlier cases[9] had suggested that a taxing officer’s discretion as to quantum should never be interfered with, in Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth[10] Kitto J held that the proposition was not an absolute one.[11] His Honour’s comments have been approved and applied in subsequent decisions.[12]
In appeals as to costs, the principles to be applied are these. The Court will always review a decision of the Taxing Officer where it is contended that he has proceeded upon a wrong principle, for the purpose of determining the principle which should be applied; and an error in principle may occur both in determining whether an item should be allowed and in determining how much should be allowed. Where no principle is involved, and the question is, whether the Taxing Officer has correctly exercised a discretion which he possesses and is purporting to exercise, the Court is reluctant to interfere. It has undoubted jurisdiction to review the Taxing Officer’s decision even where an exercise of discretion only is involved, and will do so freely on a proper case, using its own knowledge of the circumstances … but it will in general interfere only where the discretion appears not to have been exercised at all, or to have been exercised in a manner which is manifestly wrong; and where the question is one of amount only, will do so only in an extreme case.
[8](2005) 12 VR 257, [13] (Hollingworth AJA, Buchanan and Nettle JJA agreeing).
[9]For example: Alsop v Lord Oxford (1833) 1 My & K 564, 39 ER 794; Re Catlin (1854) 18 Beav. 508, 52 ER 200; In the Estate of Ogilvie (1910) P 243; Coon v Diamond Tread Co (1938) Ltd (1950) 2 All ER 385.
[10](1953) 94 CLR 621.
[11]At 628.
[12]For example, Magna Alloys & Research Pty Ltd v Coffee (No 2) [1982] VR 97 at 102 per Fullagar J.
Mr Giza’s notice of review did not object to any specific item in either bill of costs. Rather, it raised some global objections to each bill, some general questions of law said to arise from Associate Justice Wood’s decision, other questions of law said to arise from the decisions of Judicial Registrar Gourlay and Costs Registrar Walton, and a large number of other matters relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court. I have disregarded the last two categories. I am reviewing the order and decision of Associate Justice Wood, not the earlier decisions of the Costs Court. And while I acknowledge that Mr Giza is dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal proceedings, they concluded more than two years ago and there is no question of reopening issues long since determined in those proceedings. That includes the costs orders made in the appeal proceedings.
I heard the review on 26 March 2019. There was no appearance for Waybecca. Before the hearing, Waybecca’s solicitors had advised that it would not appear at the hearing. It simply relied on written submissions dated 6 February 2018, prepared for the review conducted by Judicial Registrar Gourlay.
Mr Vella did not participate in the review in any way.
Mr Giza appeared in person at the hearing of the review, and was assisted by his ‘McKenzie friend’, Stanislawa Bahonko. I heard submissions from Mr Giza and, at his request, some additional submissions from Ms Bahonko. I also considered written submissions filed by Mr Giza, prepared with Ms Bahonko’s assistance, dated 25 February 2019. After the hearing, I granted Mr Giza’s request for leave to file further written submissions. He filed those further submissions on 5 April 2019, which I have read and considered.
Based on the written and oral submissions, I have distilled the following issues to be determined in this review:
(1) Should I receive further evidence, in the form of the affidavit of Mr Giza dated 27 February 2019?
(2) Was the taxation premature because the costs orders made by the Court of Appeal were interlocutory orders?
(3) Was the summons for taxation served for an improper purpose, namely in order to force Mr Giza to resolve the underlying dispute about ownership of the parking space? If so, should it be dismissed on that basis?
(4) Should the summons for taxation have been dismissed pursuant to ss 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Act, due to alleged breaches of the overarching obligations by Waybecca and its solicitors? The essence of the alleged breaches was that Waybecca had incurred legal costs that were unreasonable and disproportionate to the matters in dispute.
(5) Should the summons for taxation have been dismissed because Mr Vella and Mr Giza have no capacity to pay?
(6) Should the solicitor’s file have been produced on the review?
(7) Was Associate Justice Wood’s decision biased or unfair?
For the reasons that follow, I have decided that the review should be dismissed.
Further evidence
In the exercise of my discretion under r 63.57(6) of the Rules, I received Mr Giza’s further affidavit of 27 February 2017, to the extent that it is relevant to my review of Associate Justice Wood’s decision. I explain in the following paragraphs which parts of the affidavit are relevant and why. The paragraphs in the affidavit are not numbered and so they are identified by the heading under which they appear.
The paragraphs under the heading ‘Demonstrated and proven fraud by the Applicant and his lawyers’ appeared to me to be relevant to issue 4 (costs disproportionate) and, in part, issue 6 (production of file).
The affidavit exhibited a letter from Waybecca’s solicitors, dated 10 August 2017, conveying an offer to compromise the Costs Court proceeding in exchange for a transfer of land for the parking space, signed by Mr Vella, and withdrawal of a caveat lodged by Mr Giza. Waybecca did not object to the tender of this letter, which I took to be a waiver of any claim for without prejudice privilege. The letter of offer was relevant to issue 3, whether the summons for taxation was premature and served for an improper purpose. The paragraphs under the heading commencing ‘Unconscionable, deceptive conduct …’ were also relevant to that issue.
The paragraphs under the heading ‘Wilful failure to provide File for the Review Process’ were relevant to issue 6 (production of file).
The balance of the affidavit was not relevant to any issue in this review. I considered whether the paragraphs under the heading ‘New facts and circumstances relevant to the case’ might be relevant to issue 3 (summons premature and for improper purpose). However, evidence that Waybecca has since sold the factory with which the parking space is associated is not logically probative of its purpose in issuing the summons for taxation in mid 2017.
The taxation was not premature
Mr Giza argued that the costs of appeal to the Court of Appeal should not have been taxed because the Court of Appeal’s order of 1 August 2016 was interlocutory. I understood this submission to be based on r 63.20.1, which provides:
If an order for costs is made on an interlocutory application or hearing, the party in whose favour the order is made shall not tax those costs until the proceeding in which the order is made is completed, unless the Court orders that the costs may be taxed immediately.
It is the case that the Court of Appeal’s orders of 1 August 2016 were made on an interlocutory application, being Waybecca’s application for an order that Mr Giza provide security for costs. Other costs orders were made on Mr Giza’s unsuccessful interlocutory applications for extensions of time and a stay. It is also the case that the proceeding in which the order was made was completed in September 2016.
The Court of Appeal ordered Mr Giza to provide security for Waybecca’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and any appeal in the sum of $25,000, by 8 September 2016. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the appeal would stand dismissed with costs, including reserved costs, if Mr Giza failed to comply with the order to provide security for costs. Mr Giza did not provide security for costs as ordered, and so the appeal stood dismissed from 9 September 2016. The High Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s order and refused special leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal proceeding was completed well before the summons for taxation was issued. Rule 63.20.1 did not apply, and the taxation was not premature.
The summons for taxation was not served for an improper purpose
I understood this submission to be based on the premise that Waybecca could not have served the summons for taxation in order to recover its costs from Mr Vella and Mr Giza, because it knew them to be impecunious. Mr Giza relied on the letter of offer sent shortly after the Costs Court proceeding was commenced as evidence that Waybecca had an improper purpose. At the hearing, the alleged improper purpose was described in various ways, using some very strong words. I understood the allegation to be that the summons for taxation was served, together with two bills of costs for frighteningly large amounts, in order to apply duress to Mr Giza to give up his claim to ownership of the parking space.
It is true that the bills of costs are for large sums of money, particularly when viewed from Mr Giza’s perspective. I do not doubt that Mr Giza was alarmed by them. Nor do I doubt that he felt some pressure to compromise his claim to ownership of the parking space, in the face of his costs liability.
I am not persuaded, however, that there was anything improper in Waybecca’s serving the summons for taxation and the bills of costs. A number of costs orders had been made in Waybecca’s favour, in the appeal proceedings in which Mr Vella and Mr Giza had been wholly unsuccessful. Those proceedings had been completed. The next step for Waybecca, as contemplated by Order 63 of the Rules, was to quantify those costs orders.
Having taken that step, there was nothing improper in Waybecca making an offer to resolve all issues in this protracted litigation. The offer was a sensible and reasonable one in the circumstances of this case, and made a legitimate proposal that was worthy of consideration. While I accept that Mr Giza felt some pressure to accept the offer, he did not do so. The pressure he felt was the consequence of his lack of success in the appeal proceedings. I do not consider that Waybecca applied duress to Mr Giza, in the sense of illegitimate pressure,[13] by making the offer.
[13]Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation [1983] 1 AC 366, 400.
No breach of overarching obligations
During the review conducted by Associate Justice Wood, Mr Giza applied to have the summons for taxation dismissed under ss 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Act. Mr Giza contended that his Honour was wrong to dismiss that application.
Before me, Mr Giza relied on the decision in Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi (No 3).[14] In that case, after a seven day trial on liability and a further two day hearing in relation to relief and costs, Actrol had established no more than a minor breach of its former employee’s contract that had caused it no compensable loss. It had rejected a number of reasonable offers of settlement made by Mr Coppi before and during the trial. Its legal costs were in the vicinity of $600,000, while Mr Coppi’s were more than $300,000. Justice Bell found that Actrol had breached the overarching obligation in s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act to take reasonable endeavours to ensure that costs are reasonable and proportionate. The legal costs incurred by Actrol were ‘manifestly not reasonably proportionate to the moderately complex and relatively minor importance of the issues in dispute which, in amount, represented purely nominal value.’[15] This was a clear and egregious contravention of Actrol’s overarching obligation, which justified an order under ss 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Act that the proceeding be dismissed.[16] The order was made so that Actrol would be ‘deprived of the fruits of a pyrrhic victory that was obtained by illegitimate means’.
[14](2015) 49 VR 573 (Actrol Parts).
[15]Actrol Parts, [72].
[16]Actrol Parts, [72], [74]-[85].
Mr Giza submits that Waybecca’s summons for taxation should have been dismissed on the same basis. He argues that Waybecca breached its overarching obligation in s 24(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to ensure reasonable and proportionate costs, because the costs of over $90,000 claimed in respect of the appeal proceedings are ‘impossible, plainly unreasonable and fraudulent’ given the low value of the property in question and the issues on appeal. He says that Waybecca’s victory was pyrrhic and obtained by illegitimate means ‘as it is limited only to obtaining costs orders and halt the appeal and nothing of substance, merit or law’.
I readily accept that the legal costs incurred by Waybecca in defending the appeal proceedings are not in proportion to the value of the property in dispute. However, that is the only similarity between this case and Actrol Parts. Unlike Actrol, Waybecca did not initiate the appeal proceedings. It was the respondent to both appeals, and was entitled to defend the order made by the Magistrates’ Court in its favour. It successfully defended both appeals, but incurred significant legal costs in doing so. In respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal, those costs included the costs of responding to Mr Giza’s unsuccessful applications for extensions of time and a stay, and Waybecca’s successful application for security for costs. Mr Giza did not tell me of any offer of settlement that he had made in the appeal proceedings,[17] another point of difference between this case and Actrol Parts.
[17]In his further written submissions dated 5 April 2019, Mr Giza relied on a letter dated 7 June 2017 from Ms Bahonko to Waybecca’s solicitors. The letter made a series of demands but conveyed no offer of any kind.
In those circumstances, I do not consider that the costs incurred by Waybecca in the appeal proceedings were unreasonable. Those costs were fully itemised in the two bills of costs, and the costs that were allowed on the taxation were assessed by Costs Registrar Conidi to have been ‘reasonably incurred and of reasonable amount’.[18] As I have already noted, Mr Giza’s notice of review does not object to any specific item in either bill of costs.
[18]Rules, r 63.30, in respect of the costs ordered to be paid on the standard basis. In respect of those costs ordered to be paid on the indemnity basis, costs must be disallowed in so far as they are of ‘an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred’: Rules, r 63.31.
Mr Giza may be right to characterise Waybecca’s victory in the appeal proceedings as ‘pyrrhic’. However, I am not persuaded that it incurred unreasonable costs in defending the appeal proceedings, or that it was in breach of its overarching obligation under s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act in respect of reasonable and proportionate costs. I conclude that Associate Justice Wood was correct not to dismiss the summons for taxation under ss 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Incapacity to pay not relevant
Mr Giza contended that the taxation of costs was futile because of his and Mr Vella’s inability to pay. He said that he is a disability pensioner, aged 62, without assets and with private debts of about half a million dollars. He said that Mr Vella is an aged pensioner in ill health, without assets and with a similar level of private debt. He asked what would be the purpose of making ‘ill pensioners … without assets sleeping on the street again’?
These are no doubt matters for Waybecca to consider as it seeks to enforce the costs orders made in its favour in the appeal proceedings.
The financial circumstances of Mr Giza and Mr Vella were not relevant to the making of the costs orders in the appeal proceedings.[19] Nor were they relevant to the assessment of the costs that were the subject of those orders. That assessment turned only on whether the costs had been reasonably incurred and were of a reasonable amount or, in the case of the indemnity costs orders, whether any of the costs incurred were of an unreasonable amount or had been unreasonably incurred.[20]
[19]Board of Examiners v XY (2006) 25 VAR 193, [31]-[36] (Chernov JA, Neave JA agreeing), [40]-[43] (Nettle JA). See also GE Dal Pont, Law of Costs (4th ed, 2018), [8.30].
[20]Rules, rr 63.30 and 63.31.
Associate Justice Wood noted the respondents’ inability to pay in his reasons for decision.[21] Correctly, he did not take them into account in conducting his review. As I have explained, capacity to pay is not a relevant consideration on a taxation of costs.
[21]Reasons, [39].
Solicitors’ file
Mr Giza submitted that I should dismiss the summons for taxation of costs because Waybecca’s solicitors’ file was not produced at the hearing before me. The file was produced at the hearing before Costs Registrar Walton, at which the two bills of costs were taxed. There was no notice to produce the file at the hearing before me, nor was there any ground of review that necessitated examination of any document on the file.
Mr Giza complained that his attempts to require production of the file in the current review had been ‘muzzled’ by the Court’s ‘Praetorian guard’. I understood this to be a reference to Registry staff with whom Mr Giza dealt in relation to this review. Having examined the Court’s file, I consider that this submission was not a fair or accurate description of the situation or the staff concerned.
What appears from the file is that, on 15 November 2018, Mr Giza sent an email to the Court attaching a document headed ‘General Form of Order’, seeking the following orders:
1.The Applicant files in the Court and serves upon Respondents its complete File it relied upon at the taxation hearing on 19 September 2017 within 7 days of this order.
2.In the event that Applicant fails to comply with the above order the Summons for Taxation stands dismissed.
A member of the Registry staff replied to Mr Giza’s email, explaining that the orders he sought would not be made on the basis of his email alone, and that any application for further orders had to be accompanied by an affidavit in support. Mr Giza was later advised, by email on 27 November 2018, that Judicial Registrar Clayton had dispensed with the usual requirement for a summons. Mr Giza did not take the matter any further. He did not file any supporting material and did not make any submissions as to why the Court should make the orders sought. His application was not ‘muzzled’; he simply did not pursue it.
If Mr Giza had pressed his application for production of the solicitors’ file before me, I would have asked him to identify which grounds of review required examination of documents on the file. As mentioned, Mr Giza’s notice of review did not object to any specific item in either bill of costs. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how the solicitors’ file could have been relevant to the review.
For these reasons, I cannot accept Mr Giza’s submission that I should dismiss the summons for taxation because the solicitors’ file was not available at the hearing before me.
No appearance of bias or unfairness
Finally, Mr Giza contended that Associate Justice Wood was biased and unfair in conducting his review. I understood there to be two broad grounds for this contention. The first was a complaint that Associate Justice Wood had represented Waybecca’s interests at the hearing before him. The second was a submission that Associate Justice Wood had demonstrated bias by reaffirming the incorrect decisions of Judicial Registrar Gourlay and Costs Registrar Walton, rather than exercising his own independent judgment.
In relation to the first ground, I have carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Associate Justice Wood on 16 August 2018. It appears from the transcript that his Honour heard submissions from both Mr Giza and Ms Bahonko. He explained the process, asked some questions, and directed attention to relevant matters. He was appropriately focused on trying to understand the submissions that were being put to him during the hearing. He said nothing that could be described as representing Waybecca or taking its side.
There is a paragraph in the Reasons about Waybecca’s non-participation in the review.[22] It concludes with the observations that Waybecca’s non-appearance did not amount to a concession as to merit, and that the respondents bore the onus to establish the merits of the review and the summons. These observations are unexceptionable, and do not indicate bias or unfairness.
[22]Reasons, [35].
As to the second ground, it is plain from the Reasons of Associate Justice Wood that he did exercise independent judgment in conducting his review. His Reasons deal carefully with the grounds put forward by Mr Giza and explain in detail his conclusion that there was no error in the decision of Judicial Registrar Gourlay. The fact that Associate Justice Wood was not persuaded that there was any error in the decision he was reviewing does not indicate bias – actual or apprehended.
Disposition
The notice of review dated 21 September 2018 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
8
0