WILLIAMS & ORS -v- SOLOMON BROTHERS [2003] WASC 141

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 141
Case No:	CIV:1492/2003	Heard:	22 JULY 2003
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	31/07/03
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS SOLOMON BROTHERS
Catchwords:	Practice Application to remit action to Supreme Court pursuant to s 76 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 Implied contractual term in retainer agreement Costs Taxation of costs Inherent jurisdiction of Supreme Court to regulate conduct of practitioners
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969, s 76 Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), Pt VI, Div 2
Case References:	D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 189 Harrison v Tew [1989] QB 307 Pryles & Defteros v Green [1999] WASC 34 Woolf v Snipe (1932) 48 CLR 677

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WILLIAMS & ORS -v- SOLOMON BROTHERS [2003] WASC 141 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 22 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 31 JULY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1492 of 2003 BETWEEN : RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS

GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS

MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS

Plaintiffs

AND

SOLOMON BROTHERS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application to remit action to Supreme Court pursuant to s 76 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 - Implied contractual term in retainer agreement

Costs - Taxation of costs - Inherent jurisdiction of Supreme Court to regulate conduct of practitioners

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969, s 76

Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), Pt VI, Div 2

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr P S Bates

Defendant : Mr M A Blundell

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Arns & Associates

Defendant : Solomon Brothers

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

D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198

Case(s) also cited:

Harrison v Tew [1989] QB 307
Pryles & Defteros v Green [1999] WASC 34
Woolf v Snipe (1932) 48 CLR 677

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: This is an application, pursuant to s 76 of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969, that District Court Action 1217 of 2001 between the defendant to the originating summons, as plaintiff (the plaintiff), and the plaintiffs in the originating summons, as defendants (the defendants), be remitted to the Supreme Court for hearing and determination. The basis of the application is that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to determine certain of the matters which the defendants in that action seek to raise by way of defence. The difficulty with the application is that it does not appear to me that the issues which the defendants seek to agitate in that action, and which they submit are within this Court's exclusive jurisdiction, appear in any intelligible way from the defence which it has filed. The somewhat complex history of the proceedings, which sets this view which I…

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 WILLIAMS v Solomon Brothers

Details

AGLC: WILLIAMS v Solomon Brothers [2003] WASC 141
Case: [2003] WASC 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams & Ors v Solomon Brothers was heard by Wheeler J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs, a group of individuals, sought to have a matter heard in the Supreme Court rather than the District Court, on the basis that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the issues. The case involved a claim by the defendant, a firm of legal practitioners, for payment of legal fees, and a defence by the plaintiffs which included allegations of overcharging. The primary legal issue was whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether it should be remitted to the Supreme Court.

Wheeler J carefully considered the pleadings and previous decisions, noting that both the Deputy Registrar and Muller DCJ had found that the defendants' defence was an abuse of process as it effectively sought a taxation of costs. The defendants argued that the Supreme Court had inherent jurisdiction to hear the matter, but this was rejected by Wheeler J who found that the defence did not properly invoke any inherent jurisdiction and that the only possible basis for the defence was either a contractual term or statutory provisions, neither of which were properly pleaded. The court concluded that the matter should not be remitted to the Supreme Court as there was no clear basis for the defence as it stood.

The application to remit the action to the Supreme Court was dismissed. The court suggested that the defendants should reconsider the basis of their defence and either seek leave to amend in the District Court or make a further application for remitter if they were able to properly frame their defence.

Orders