WILSON -v- McDONALD [2009] WASCA 39 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2009] WASCA 39 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1094/2007 | 19 SEPTEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ WHEELER JA BEECH AJA | 11/02/09 | |
| 15/05/09 | |||
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | No order as to costs Respondent granted indemnity certificate pursuant to Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROBERT GORDON WILSON JOSEPH McDONALD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(h), s 20(2), s 20(3) Appeals in which a police officer, acting in an official capacity, is a party to proceedings Point of law of 'exceptional public importance' Discretion Consideration of analogy of civil proceedings No general rule that costs should ordinarily follow the event Application under s 10 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(h), s 20(2), s 20(3) Criminal Code (WA), s 70A Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1 Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA), s 10(1) |
Case References: | Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 169 Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASC 28(S) Interim Advance Corporation Pty Ltd v Fazio [2008] WASCA 140(S) Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534 Mastrangelo v Reynolds [2001] WASCA 347; (2001) 25 WAR 133 Papas v Papas [2004] WASCA 6 R v Kelly (Attorney-General's Reference No 53 of 1998) [2000] 1 QB 198 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WILSON -v- McDONALD [2009] WASCA 39 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- WHEELER JA
BEECH AJA
DECISION : 15 MAY 2009 FILE NO/S : SJA 1094 of 2007 BETWEEN : ROBERT GORDON WILSON
- Appellant
AND
JOSEPH McDONALD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE G RANDAZZO
File No : PE 23804 of 2007
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(h), s 20(2), s 20(3) - Appeals in which a police officer, acting in an official capacity, is a party to proceedings - Point of law of 'exceptional public importance' - Discretion - Consideration of analogy of civil proceedings - No general rule that costs should ordinarily follow the event - Application under s 10 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(h), s 20(2), s 20(3)
Criminal Code (WA), s 70A
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1
Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA), s 10(1)
Result:
No order as to costs
Respondent granted indemnity certificate pursuant to Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr D E Leigh
Respondent : Mr G S MacLean
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent : Gavin…
Continue reading Wilson v McDonald
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39 (S)
- Case
- [2009] WASCA 39 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wilson v McDonald involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Wilson, and the defendant, McDonald, a police officer. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought costs associated with an appeal that was ultimately dismissed. The appeal pertained to a matter of significant public interest, involving the interpretation and application of certain sections of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) and the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA). The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs under the statutes in question, specifically whether the costs should follow the event or whether the court should exercise its discretion to award costs on a different basis.
The court considered the nature of the appeal and the public importance of the legal issues raised. It noted that the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) provides for an appeal process in which a police officer acting in an official capacity may be a party, and it grants the court discretion to determine costs. The court examined the analogy to civil proceedings where costs do not necessarily follow the event. The court found that there was no general rule that costs should ordinarily follow the event in such cases and that the court's discretion under section 10 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) was applicable. The court concluded that the point of law involved was of exceptional public importance and that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. Instead, the court granted the defendant an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA).
In summary, the court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs from the defendant in the appeal. The decision underscored the discretionary nature of cost awards in cases involving police officers and matters of significant public importance. The court exercised its discretion to grant the defendant an indemnity certificate, ensuring that the defendant was not burdened with the costs of the appeal.
The court considered the nature of the appeal and the public importance of the legal issues raised. It noted that the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) provides for an appeal process in which a police officer acting in an official capacity may be a party, and it grants the court discretion to determine costs. The court examined the analogy to civil proceedings where costs do not necessarily follow the event. The court found that there was no general rule that costs should ordinarily follow the event in such cases and that the court's discretion under section 10 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) was applicable. The court concluded that the point of law involved was of exceptional public importance and that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. Instead, the court granted the defendant an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA).
In summary, the court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs from the defendant in the appeal. The decision underscored the discretionary nature of cost awards in cases involving police officers and matters of significant public importance. The court exercised its discretion to grant the defendant an indemnity certificate, ensuring that the defendant was not burdened with the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
No order as to costs
Respondent granted indemnity certificate pursuant to Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA)
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.