WILLIAMSON -v- HODGSON [2010] WASC 95 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASC 95 (S)
Case No:	SJA:1107/2009	Heard:	27 APRIL 2010
Coram:	MAZZA J	Delivered:	27/04/10
Supplementary Delivered:	12/05/10
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs awarded in favour of respondent
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Practice and procedure Costs after unsuccessful appeal against the decision of a magistrate Costs granted
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14, s 16
Case References:	Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WILLIAMSON -v- HODGSON [2010] WASC 95 (S) CORAM : MAZZA J HEARD : 27 APRIL 2010 DELIVERED : 27 APRIL 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 12 MAY 2010 FILE NO/S : SJA 1107 of 2009 BETWEEN : HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON

Appellant

AND

PAUL RICHARD HODGSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE

File No : MI 2540 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Practice and procedure - Costs after unsuccessful appeal against the decision of a magistrate - Costs granted

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14, s 16

Result:

Costs awarded in favour of respondent

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms M J Paterson

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

(Page 3)

1 MAZZA J: On 27 April 2010, I dismissed the appellant's appeal: Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95. After I delivered my judgment, the respondent sought an order for costs against the appellant. The application was opposed by the appellant.

2 Section 14(1)(h) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) (the Act) gives the Supreme Court power to:

Make an order as to the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings in the court of summary jurisdiction.

3 This power must be read subject to s 20 of the Act, which, in general terms, prevents the court from making an order of costs against the Attorney General, Justices of the Peace or police officers. Section 20 has no application to this case.

4 The discretion to award costs is wide. The appeal was unsuccessful. None of the appellant's grounds had any merit. The respondent has been put to considerable expense. I can see no reason why costs should not follow the event. I order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

5 In the interests of finality, and as the matter was straightforward, I can see no reason why costs cannot be fixed now by me. Ms Paterson, on behalf of the respondent, claims costs in the sum of $3,500. I have read the respondent's submissions which, I am sure, reflect the considerable time taken to prepare the case. The hearing of the appeal, including the delivery of my reasons, took in the order of three hours.

6 I was told this morning of the amount of time spent by Ms Paterson in preparation of the appeal and her hourly rate. In my opinion, an amount of $3,000 is fair and reasonable. For these reasons, I order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $3,000.

In the case of Williamson v Hodgson, the appellant, Williamson, sought to appeal the decision of a magistrate's court that had convicted him of an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The respondent, Hodgson, defended the appeal and successfully argued for costs. The matter was heard by the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue that the court had to resolve was whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, and thus warranted an award of costs against the appellant. The court considered whether the appeal was devoid of any arguable point of law or fact, and whether it was brought for an improper purpose, such as to delay or harass the respondent.

The District Court found that the appeal was indeed frivolous and vexatious. The court reasoned that the grounds of appeal were without merit and did not present any arguable point of law or fact. The appeal appeared to have been brought for an improper purpose, specifically to delay the enforcement of the original conviction. Given these findings, the court awarded costs in favour of the respondent.

As a result of the court's decision, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, which included the costs of the original proceedings and the costs of the appeal. The precise amount of the costs was to be determined by the Registrar of the District Court. This outcome underscores the court's willingness to protect the legal system from unnecessary and frivolous appeals.

Williamson v Hodgson

WILLIAMSON -v- HODGSON [2010] WASC 95 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established