WILSON v CASSIDY - [2013] WADC 184

WILSON -v- CASSIDY [2013] WADC 184

Last Update: 28/11/2013

WILSON -v- CASSIDY [2013] WADC 184
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 184
Case No:	CIV:678/2012	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN	Delivered:	27/11/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Allegations of error not established
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	MARGARET JOY WILSON NATHAN LEO JAMES CASSIDY
Catchwords:	Practice Western Australia Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Review of taxation Inspection, preparation for pre-trial conference, preparation of case Taxation of costs
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WILSON -v- CASSIDY [2013] WADC 184 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 27 NOVEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 678 of 2012 BETWEEN : MARGARET JOY WILSON

Plaintiff

AND

NATHAN LEO JAMES CASSIDY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 - Review of taxation - Inspection, preparation for pre-trial conference, preparation of case - Taxation of costs

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Allegations of error not established

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co

Defendant : Tottle Partners

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

Nil

(Page 3)

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: The plaintiff is entitled to recover in accordance with the scale the reasonable cost of services necessarily provided to her in the course of the action. She has lodged a notice of objection to determinations made upon taxation of four items in her bill of costs.

2 The first, made under item 8 is as follows:

Taking inspection of defendant's documents requested 4 April 2013.

3 Although the defendant had not put in issue the necessity for provision of the service, because recovery under item 8 is at hourly rates, determining quantum necessitated consideration of the extent to which the activity outlined by the plaintiff accorded with inspection. In broad terms the plaintiff had obtained copies of documents and considered their content. Such activity is at the core of the service preparation of case. In the context of taxation it is desirable that services be distinguished in order not to found the perception of double recovery.

4 As I had heard nothing directly on point I took it to be the case that either inspection had not actually been undertaken or that for some reason, the undertaking had not been worth mentioning. In any event I was satisfied that had the service been provided the plaintiff would have been able to identify the documents as those described in the list without much difficulty. To the extent that the activity had generated scope for the provision of inspection I determined that the plaintiff was entitled to $100. I have taken the opportunity to qualify the basis for the determination because absent the concession,…

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 WILSON v CASSIDY

Details

AGLC: WILSON v CASSIDY [2013] WADC 184
Case: [2013] WADC 184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of Western Australia, Margaret Joy Wilson lodged an objection to the determinations made upon taxation of her bill of costs against Nathan Leo James Cassidy. The objections were heard on the papers by Deputy Registrar Harman. The plaintiff's objections primarily concerned the disallowance of certain items of her costs, including those related to the inspection of defendant's documents, preparation for a pre-trial conference, and the preparation of her case. She also objected to the disallowance of her claim for the costs of taxation.

The court analyzed each objection in detail, considering whether the taxing officer had made an error in principle. For the inspection of documents, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a limited recovery for inspection, but the primary activity was preparation of case, which was taxed accordingly. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the taxing officer should have considered additional activities under the inspection item. Regarding the preparation for the pre-trial conference, the court held that the disallowance was correct as the scale did not permit recovery for conferences between a solicitor and a party. The court also found no error in principle in the disallowance of part of the plaintiff's claim for preparation of case, as the taxing officer's assessment of complexity was reasonable. Lastly, concerning the costs of taxation, the court upheld the disallowance, noting that the costs of the process were discretionary, and the fact that an offer had been made did not necessitate a different outcome.

Ultimately, the court dismissed all the plaintiff's objections, finding no error in principle in the taxing officer's determinations.

Orders