William Buck (WA) Pty Ltd v Faulkner [No 2]

In the case of William Buck (WA) Pty Ltd v Faulkner [No 2], the respondent sought a review of a costs order issued by the primary judge, challenging the fee charged for copying inspected documents. The respondent argued that the fee charged for in-house copying was excessive and that the primary judge should not have relied on Item 31 of the Costs Determination 2010. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge was correct in applying Item 31 of the Costs Determination 2010 to determine the fee for in-house copying. The court considered the onus of persuasion and whether the respondent had met it to show that the fee was excessive.

The court held that the onus lay on the party seeking to challenge the fee, in this case, the respondent. The court found that the respondent had not met this onus and that the primary judge was correct in applying Item 31 of the Costs Determination 2010. The court noted that the fee charged was reasonable and consistent with industry standards. The court further held that the primary judge was entitled to rely on Item 31 of the Costs Determination 2010, as it was a valid and relevant consideration in determining the fee for in-house copying. The court dismissed the respondent's application to increase the scale allowance.

In conclusion, the court upheld the primary judge's decision and refused the respondent's application to increase the scale allowance. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied Item 31 of the Costs Determination 2010 and that the respondent had not met the onus of persuasion to show that the fee charged was excessive. The court's decision reinforces the importance of meeting the onus of persuasion when challenging a costs order and the relevance of industry standards in determining fees for in-house copying.