Abbotts Pty Ltd v Gel Group Pty Ltd

[2007] WADC 197

ABBOTTS PTY LTD -v- GEL GROUP PTY LTD [2007] WADC 197

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 197
Case No:	CIV:2755/2003	Heard:	NOT APPLICABLE
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN	Delivered:	8/11/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Objections not sustained
PDF Version

Parties:	ABBOTTS PTY LTD GEL GROUP PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice Western Australia Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia- Order 55 r 53 Determinations made in relation to quantum
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Mossensons v Coastline Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970661; 2 December 1997

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ABBOTTS PTY LTD -v- GEL GROUP PTY LTD [2007] WADC 197 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN HEARD : NOT APPLICABLE DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2755 of 2003 BETWEEN : ABBOTTS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

GEL GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia- Order 55 r 53 - Determinations made in relation to quantum

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Objections not sustained

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance
Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Stewart Forbes
Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Mossensons v Coastline Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970661; 2 December 1997

(Page 3)

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN:The defendant succeeded in the action and taxed its costs. The plaintiff subsequently bought a notice of objection before her Honour Judge Wager. The associate's record is that Items 7 – 10 and Items 12 – 18 be remitted to the Registrar for review.

2 Although the matter was listed the parties agreed to dispense with the hearing and invited me to conclude the process in their absence.

3 My understanding of the import of the reasons of Ipp J in Mossensons v Coastline Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970661; 2 December 1997 is that a quantum determination is open for review upon a finding that it could not reasonably have been made by a taxing officer.

4 There is no reason to separately deal with each relevant determination. I am satisfied that by that datum none of them reveals a reviewable error. In expressing that result I have considered each determination in light of the process that I expressed at par 8 of my reasons of 5 June 2007 as follows:

" … In each case, prior to determining the quantum of the fee I had been provided with information and submissions from the parties of the extent to which relevant services had been provided and features of the context in which they had been provided. In the process of assessing quantum I reflected upon the information and the submissions. I then determined the point within the range provided by each relevant scale item at which recovery for the service or services that comprised the claim would be reasonable. … ."

5 None of the objections are sustained.