Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd

In the case of Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd, the appellant, Dr Zaghloul, sought to challenge the bill of costs (BOC) submitted by the first respondent, Woodside Energy Ltd. The dispute primarily revolved around the propriety of the costs claimed and the process followed by the Registrar in taxing the costs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and the decision was delivered by the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the review by a single judge of a taxing officer's review of a bill of costs was an interlocutory decision requiring leave to appeal, and if the primary judge erred in concluding that no error in principle was made by the taxing officer. Additionally, the court had to determine the meaning of 'successful party' in the context of costs, the discretion of the court to modify usual costs orders to reflect the limited success of a successful party, the registrar's discretion to stay payment of costs in the bill of costs by setting-off costs awarded in another jurisdiction, and whether the primary judge denied Dr Zaghloul procedural fairness by not allowing him to make submissions before making an indemnity costs order against him.

The Court of Appeal held that the review by a single judge of a taxing officer's review of a bill of costs was not an interlocutory decision requiring leave to appeal. The court found that the primary judge did not err in concluding that no error in principle was made by the taxing officer. The court clarified that there is a strong presumption of the existence of a retainer when a solicitor has performed work on behalf of a person with their knowledge and assent, and that the party for whom the solicitor acts is liable for the solicitor's costs. The court also noted that the taxing officer has the power to summon and examine witnesses and require the production of documents, but these powers are discretionary and need not be exercised in every case. The court further held that the registrar had discretion to stay payment of costs in the bill of costs by setting-off costs awarded in another jurisdiction, and that the primary judge did not deny Dr Zaghloul procedural fairness by not allowing him to make submissions before making an indemnity costs order against him.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal was dismissed, and Dr Zaghloul was ordered to pay Woodside Energy Ltd's costs of the appeal.