Wiltshire v Amos (No2)

The case of Wiltshire v Amos (No2) involved a dispute regarding the proper form of orders and costs in civil proceedings in state and territory courts. The matter was before the court to determine whether the costs assessed by the costs assessor were appropriate. The parties to the case were Wiltshire, the plaintiff, and Amos, the defendant. The dispute centred on the calculation of costs, with the plaintiff seeking to recover costs in the amount of $129,230.90, while the defendant argued that the costs should be reduced to $119,630.90.
The legal issues before the court were whether the costs assessed were reasonable and whether the costs should be reduced to the amount claimed by the defendant. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles in determining the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded. The court also had to consider whether the costs assessor had properly exercised his or her discretion in assessing the costs.
The court found that the costs assessed by the costs assessor were not appropriate and varied the certificate of the costs assessor as follows: the amount of $129,230.90 was reduced to $119,630.90, the figure $6,145.00 was reduced to $3,145.00, the figure $123,085.90 was reduced to $116,485.90, and the figure $132,463.80 was reduced to $122,863.80. The court held that the costs assessed by the costs assessor were not reasonable and that the costs should be reduced to the amount claimed by the defendant. The court also held that the costs assessor had not properly exercised his or her discretion in assessing the costs. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles.
In summary, the court found that the costs assessed by the costs assessor were not appropriate and varied the certificate of the costs assessor to reduce the amount of costs to be awarded to the defendant. The court held that the costs assessed by the costs assessor were not reasonable and that the costs should be reduced to the amount claimed by the defendant. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles.