WINTER -v- FLEETON [2002] WASCA 73
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 73 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1047/2001 | 6 NOVEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J | 5/04/02 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Respondent to pay appellant's disbursements at $543.75 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALEXANDER JOSEPH WINTER CRAIG WALTER FLEETON |
Catchwords: | Costs Litigant in person Only entitled to necessary expenditure to advance his appeal Not the reimbursement for attending at hearings |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 219 Official Prosecutions (Defendants Costs) Act 1973 (WA), s 5(4) |
Case References: | Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 QB 27 Cachia v Hanes & Anor (1994) 179 CLR 403 Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 169; BC 200102888 London Scottish Benefits Society v Chorley [1884] 13 QBD 872 Serrell v Bryant (Commissioner of State Revenue), unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 980123; 7 April 1998; BC 9801126 Williams v Beverley, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 980474; 24 August 1998; BC 9804278 Byrne v Godfree (1997) 96 A Crim R 197 Gill v King, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; 12 November 1996; BC 9605523 Klahn v Talbot (1995) 83 A Crim R 535 Sullivan and Department of Industry, Science and Technology; Re (1998) 51 ALD 767 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Appellant
AND
CRAIG WALTER FLEETON
Respondent
Catchwords:
Costs - Litigant in person - Only entitled to necessary expenditure to advance his appeal - Not the reimbursement for attending at hearings
Legislation:
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 219
Official Prosecutions (Defendants Costs) Act 1973 (WA), s 5(4)
Result:
Respondent to pay appellant's disbursements at $543.75
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms R A Yates
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 QB 27
Cachia v Hanes & Anor (1994) 179 CLR 403
Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 169; BC 200102888
London Scottish Benefits Society v Chorley [1884] 13 QBD 872
Serrell v Bryant (Commissioner of State Revenue), unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 980123; 7 April 1998; BC 9801126
Williams v Beverley, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 980474; 24 August 1998; BC 9804278
Case(s) also cited:
Byrne v Godfree (1997) 96 A Crim R 197
Gill v King, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; 12 November 1996; BC 9605523
Klahn v Talbot (1995) 83 A Crim R 535
Sullivan and Department of Industry, Science and Technology; Re (1998) 51 ALD 767
(Page 3)
1 WALLWORK J: On the 5 April 2001 the appellant in this matter was given leave to appeal from a conviction in a Court of Petty Sessions. The appellant had been convicted of speeding. He…
Continue reading Winter v Fleeton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Winter v Fleeton [2002] WASCA 73
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 73
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Winter v Fleeton involved a dispute between the appellant, Winter, and the respondent, Fleeton. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, where the primary issue was the entitlement of the appellant to reimbursement of certain costs incurred during the course of the litigation. Winter, who appeared as a litigant in person, sought to recover some of the expenses he had paid for, including attendance at hearings, as part of his appeal against a decision made in the lower court.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, as a litigant in person, was entitled to reimbursement of the costs he had incurred that were not strictly necessary for advancing his appeal. The court was required to determine whether the costs associated with attending hearings were recoverable, in addition to other necessary expenditures such as legal research and preparation of documents. The court had to balance the appellant's right to fair access to the courts against the principle that litigants in person should not be able to claim costs for activities that are not directly related to the advancement of their case.
In reaching its decision, the court held that a litigant in person is only entitled to reimbursement of those costs that are necessary to advance their appeal. The court emphasised that the mere attendance at hearings was not a necessary expenditure for the purposes of the appeal. It was noted that the primary function of a hearing is for the presentation of evidence and arguments, and not for the litigant to be present as a formality. The court found that the appellant's attendance at the hearings did not constitute a necessary cost for advancing his appeal, and as such, these costs were not recoverable. The court did, however, find that other costs incurred by the appellant for legal research and document preparation were necessary and could be claimed.
Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent, Fleeton, pay the appellant, Winter, the sum of $543.75 in respect of the disbursements that were deemed necessary for advancing the appeal. The court's decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between costs that are necessary for the advancement of an appeal and those that are not, particularly in cases where the litigant is representing themselves.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, as a litigant in person, was entitled to reimbursement of the costs he had incurred that were not strictly necessary for advancing his appeal. The court was required to determine whether the costs associated with attending hearings were recoverable, in addition to other necessary expenditures such as legal research and preparation of documents. The court had to balance the appellant's right to fair access to the courts against the principle that litigants in person should not be able to claim costs for activities that are not directly related to the advancement of their case.
In reaching its decision, the court held that a litigant in person is only entitled to reimbursement of those costs that are necessary to advance their appeal. The court emphasised that the mere attendance at hearings was not a necessary expenditure for the purposes of the appeal. It was noted that the primary function of a hearing is for the presentation of evidence and arguments, and not for the litigant to be present as a formality. The court found that the appellant's attendance at the hearings did not constitute a necessary cost for advancing his appeal, and as such, these costs were not recoverable. The court did, however, find that other costs incurred by the appellant for legal research and document preparation were necessary and could be claimed.
Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent, Fleeton, pay the appellant, Winter, the sum of $543.75 in respect of the disbursements that were deemed necessary for advancing the appeal. The court's decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between costs that are necessary for the advancement of an appeal and those that are not, particularly in cases where the litigant is representing themselves.
Orders
Orders of the court
Respondent to pay appellant's disbursements at $543.75
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.