Woolf v Willis - [1911] HCA 51

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Practice-Costs-Taxation-Solicito and Client---Costs increased by misconduct or

negligence of Solicitor-Report of taxing officer-Burden of proof-Rules of the Supreme Court of Victoria 1906, Order LXV., r. 27 (38A).

On a report by the taxing officer under Order LXV., r. 27 (38A) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1906 the jurisdiction of the Judge is not disciplinary, but is in the nature of a review of taxation.

Where it is alleged under Order LXV., r. 27 (38A) that costs have been increased by the misconduct or negligence of the solicitor, the onus is upon the client to establish that he has been damnified, and to what extent.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria: In re the Bill of Costs of Joseph Woolf, (1911) V.L.R., 375; 33 A.L.T., 57, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

In January 1911 an action was brought in the County Court at Melbourne by Walter Stephen Willis, by his solicitor Mr. Joseph Woolf, against the Victorian Railways Commissioners to recover £2,000 damages in respect of injuries received by him in a railway accident on 18th July 1910. On 19th April the action was settled on the terms that the Commissioners should pay to Willis £1,042.

On 6th May Mr. Woolf rendered a bill of costs to Willis amounting to £175, and this bill was brought by Willis before

13 CLR 24

the Taxing Master for taxation. On 12th July 1911 the Taxing

Master, pursuant to Order LXV., r. 27 (38A) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1906, made a report to àBeckett J., in which he stated that Mr. Woolf had been guilty of misconduct in omitting WILLIS.

to inform Willis of the full details of the attitude of the Commis- sioners towards Willis's claim, and that the costs had been increased by such misconduct or by unnecessary proceedings. On the report coming on for consideration before àBeckett J., both Mr. Woolf and Willis were represented by counsel, and, at the request of counsel for Willis, his Honor referred the report to the Full Court, and also made an order nisi calling upon Mr. Woolf to show cause before the Full Court why all costs included in the bill of costs and incurred after 7th March 1911 should not be disallowed as between Mr. Woolf and Willis. The Full Court found that Mr. Woolf had been guilty of negligence in not informing Willis of a certain suggestion made by one Robert Normand, a Clerk to the Crown Solicitor, who represented the Commissioners, on 7th March 1911, and, by a majority, they also held that in consequence of such negligence the costs had been increased. They therefore made absolute the order nisi and directed the Taxing Master to proceed with the taxation, and to disallow all costs incurred after 7th March. (In re the Bill of Costs of Joseph Woolf 1 ).

The material facts are stated in the judgments hereunder. Mr. Woolf…

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 Woolf v Willis

Details

AGLC: Woolf v Willis [1911] HCA 51
Case: [1911] HCA 51
Decision Date: 29 September 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding the taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs. The dispute arose after Walter Stephen Willis settled an action for damages against the Victorian Railways Commissioners for £1,042. His solicitor, Joseph Woolf, rendered a bill of costs amounting to £175. Willis subsequently brought this bill before the Taxing Master, alleging that Woolf had been guilty of misconduct or negligence, which had increased the costs. The Taxing Master reported to the Supreme Court that Woolf had omitted to inform Willis of the Commissioners' attitude towards his claim and that costs had been increased by such misconduct or unnecessary proceedings.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had correctly determined that Woolf's negligence in failing to inform Willis of a suggestion made by the Commissioners' representative on 7 March 1911 had increased the costs, and consequently, whether all costs incurred after that date should be disallowed. The Supreme Court had found Woolf negligent and made absolute an order nisi disallowing costs incurred after 7 March 1911. Woolf appealed this decision, arguing that the onus was on Willis to prove he had been damnified by the alleged negligence and to what extent.

The High Court, by majority, allowed the appeal. It held that the jurisdiction under Order LXV., r. 27 (38A) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1906 was in the nature of a review of taxation, not a disciplinary one. The Court reasoned that where it is alleged that costs have been increased by a solicitor's misconduct or negligence, the onus rests upon the client to establish that they have been damnified and the extent of that detriment. The Court found that while Woolf's omission to inform Willis of the suggestion made on 7 March 1911 was an error of judgment, it did not render the subsequent costs unnecessary. The evidence indicated that the commission to Sydney to obtain expert medical evidence was reasonably necessary and ultimately led to a significantly more favourable settlement for Willis, making the expenditure beneficial rather than unnecessary.

Consequently, the High Court discharged the order of the Supreme Court of Victoria and ordered that the bill of costs be referred back to the Taxing Master for taxation.

Orders