Wyatt v Mr and RC Smith Pty Ltd - [2010] WADC 178 (S)

WYATT -v- MR & RC SMITH PTY LTD [2010] WADC 178 (S)

Last Update: 09/05/2011

WYATT -v- MR & RC SMITH PTY LTD [2010] WADC 178 (S)
Link to Appeal:	[2012] WASCA 110
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WADC 178 (S)
Case No:	CIV:562/2006	Heard:	16 DECEMBER 2010 & 18 FEBRUARY 2011
Coram:	WAGER DCJ	Delivered:	30/11/2010
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	14/04/2011
No of Pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's costs against first defendant be taxed without regard to the limits of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2008 and 2010 for: (1) getting up for trial; (2) counsel fee on brief - first day of trial and preparation (3) refresher fee for counsel for 21 June 2010; (4) certificate for preparation of closing submissions by counsel; (5) certificate for costs of the transcript; (6) Certificate for costs of issuing and answering interrogatories consistent with par 3(a) of the plaintiff's amended minute of proposed orders First defendant pay the costs of plaintiff's special costs application to be taxed and including 16 December 2010 First defendant pay to second defendant the costs the second defendant claims against plaintiff. There be liberty to apply No order as to costs between third party and first defendant and of the notice of appeal dated 25 January 2010 No order as to costs between third party and second defendant and of the notice of appeal dated 25 January 2010
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ROBERT WYATT MR & RC SMITH PTY LTD ROKLEN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ULTRA TUNE AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Costs Bullock order or Sanderson order Special costs order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981
Case References:	BankAmerica Finance Limited v Nock [1988] AC 1002 Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264 Cifuentes v Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 316 (S) Coastal Hire Pty Ltd v Ewers [2009] WASCA 36 (S) Gove v Black [2007] WASC 298 (S) Heartlink Ltd v Jones as Liquidator for HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) Michael Aaron James (by his next friend Rhonda Dawn James) v Grant [2009] WADC 201 (S2) MR & RC Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultra Tune (Osborne Park) v Wyatt [2011] WASCA 43 O'Rourke v P & B Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36; (2008) 36 WAR 197 Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533 Wyatt v MR & RC Smith Pty Ltd [2010] WADC 178

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WYATT -v- MR & RC SMITH PTY LTD [2010] WADC 178 (S) CORAM : WAGER DCJ HEARD : 16 DECEMBER 2010 & 18 FEBRUARY 2011 DELIVERED : 30 NOVEMBER 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 14 APRIL 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 562 of 2006 BETWEEN : ROBERT WYATT

Plaintiff

AND

MR & RC SMITH PTY LTD

First Defendant

ROKLEN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

Second Defendant

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wyatt v Mr and RC Smith Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] WADC 178 (S)
Decision Date: 30 NOVEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wyatt v Mr and RC Smith Pty Ltd, the parties involved were the plaintiff, Wyatt, and the defendants, Mr and RC Smith Pty Ltd. The dispute revolved around the assessment of costs in relation to the trial and subsequent proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a special costs order under either a Bullock or Sanderson order. This determination hinged on the unique circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties involved. The court needed to decide if the plaintiff's costs should be taxed without regard to the standard limits set by the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2008 and 2010.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to a special costs order. This conclusion was reached based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, which warranted a deviation from the standard cost limits. The court outlined that the plaintiff's costs would be taxed without regard to the statutory limits for several specific items, including preparation for trial, counsel fees, and other specified costs. Additionally, the first defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff's special costs application, including the costs incurred up to a specified date. Furthermore, the first defendant was also ordered to reimburse the second defendant for the costs claimed against the plaintiff. The court made no order regarding the costs between the third party and the first or second defendants concerning a notice of appeal.

In summary, the court granted the plaintiff a special costs order, allowing certain costs to be taxed outside the statutory limits, and directed the first defendant to cover specified costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's costs against first defendant be taxed without regard to the limits of the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Determination 2008 and 2010 for:

(1) getting up for trial;

(2) counsel fee on brief - first day of trial and preparation

(3) refresher fee for counsel for 21 June 2010;

(4) certificate for preparation of closing submissions by counsel;

(5) certificate for costs of the transcript;

(6) Certificate for costs of issuing and answering interrogatories consistent with par 3(a) of the plaintiff's amended minute of proposed orders

First defendant pay the costs of plaintiff's special costs application to be taxed and including 16 December 2010

First defendant pay to second defendant the costs the second defendant claims against plaintiff. There be liberty to apply

No order as to costs between third party and first defendant and of the notice of appeal dated 25 January 2010

No order as to costs between third party and second defendant and of the notice of appeal dated 25 January 2010

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.