Weber v Deakin University (No 2) - [2016] VSC 679

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2014 06753

MARK PAUL WEBER	Appellant
v
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY and Ors	Respondents

S CI 2016 01380

MARK PAUL WEBER	Appellant
v
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY and Ors	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Written submissions by the parties dated 4 November 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Weber v Deakin University & ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 679 (First Revision 14 November 2016)

---

COSTS — Separate but related appeals from Associate Judge and Magistrates’ Court on questions of law — No errors identified or established — Appeals dismissed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	The appellant in person
For the Respondent	Colin Biggers & Paisley

HER HONOUR:

On 6 September 2016 judgment was delivered in these two separate, but related proceedings, where the appellant appealed against the judgment of Associate Justice Derham of 11 December 2015 and the decision of Magistrate Saines of 16 March 2016.

The appellant represented himself on the appeals and the respondents were represented by senior and junior counsel.

The appellant failed to establish that either Associate Justice Derham or Magistrate Saines erred as alleged by him. The Court dismissed all of the grounds of appeal pressed by the appellant.

The successful respondents seek their costs in both proceedings, including fees for senior and junior counsel, on a standard basis. The appellant opposes the respondents’ application for costs.

General costs principles

The discretionary jurisdiction of the Court as to costs is conferred by s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and must be exercised in accordance with Order 63 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.[1]
[1]Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 399 (14 September 2012) [11] (Croft J). See also Coombes v Ward (No 2) [2002] VSC 84 (27 March 2002).

The ‘usual order as to costs’ is that a successful party in litigation is entitled to an award of costs with the unsuccessful party bearing the liability for the costs of the unsuccessful litigation.[2]
[2]Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 97 (McHugh J).

The prima facie position in respect of costs in litigation is for standard costs to be ordered by the court, with the court having the discretion to award costs other than on the standard basis. This reflects the position that an award of costs as between parties to litigation is aimed at compensating, rather than penalizing, the successful party for their legal costs incurred by reason of the proceedings. An award of costs other than on a standard basis will only be made where the proceeding exhibits a special or unusual feature or special circumstances.

Discretionary factors taken into account on the exercise of the Court’s discretion in making costs orders are wide ranging. In the case of an unrepresented…

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 Weber v Deakin University (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Weber v Deakin University (No 2) [2016] VSC 679
Case: [2016] VSC 679
Decision Date: 9 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Weber v Deakin University (No 2), the respondent, Weber, appealed against the decision of the Associate Judge of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Magistrates’ Court regarding the costs incurred in the proceedings. The dispute centred around the allocation of costs between the parties, following a decision in Weber’s favour on a claim for unpaid wages. The court had to determine whether the Associate Judge and the Magistrates’ Court had made any errors in their assessment of the costs awarded.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Associate Judge and the Magistrates’ Court had erred in their assessment of the costs incurred during the proceedings. The court examined the principles of costs in litigation, focusing on the appropriateness of the amounts awarded and whether the decisions reflected a fair and just outcome based on the circumstances of the case. The court also considered whether any errors were established on the appeal that warranted a review of the costs order.

The court found that there were no errors identified or established in the assessment of the costs by either the Associate Judge or the Magistrates’ Court. The reasoning of the court focused on the correctness of the legal principles applied and the proportionality of the costs awarded in relation to the nature and complexity of the proceedings. The court concluded that both the Associate Judge and the Magistrates’ Court had exercised their discretion appropriately and that the costs orders were within the bounds of what was reasonable and fair in the circumstances.

Given the findings, the appeals were dismissed. The court upheld the decisions of the Associate Judge and the Magistrates’ Court, affirming the costs orders as they stood. The decision reinforces the importance of judicial discretion in cost assessments and underscores that such decisions will not be overturned in the absence of demonstrated error.

Orders