GIUDICE -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2014] WASCA 115 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 115 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:99/2012 | 4 JUNE 2014 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA EDELMAN J | 17/06/14 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | No order as to costs of the appeal | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER GEORGE GIUDICE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs Whether no order should be made as to costs Unnecessary costs incurred due to unsatisfactory grounds of appeal |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : GIUDICE -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2014] WASCA 115 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
EDELMAN J
- Appellant
AND
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
- MS S GILLETT (MEMBER)
MR C PHILLIPS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
Citation : LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and GIUDICE [2012] WASAT 144
File No : VR 113 of 2011, VR 114 of 2011
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether no order should be made as to costs - Unnecessary costs incurred due to unsatisfactory grounds of appeal
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
No order as to costs of the appeal
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
Respondent : Mr M D Cuerden & Ms P Le Miere
Solicitors:
Appellant : D L Armstrong
Respondent : Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115
1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 4 June 2014, the court published its reasons1 for concluding that the practitioner's appeal should be allowed, the decision of the Tribunal from which he appealed set aside, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration and determination in accordance with the reasons of the court.
2 In those reasons, Martin CJ expressed the provisional view that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal. In support of that view he observed:
Although the practitioner has been successful, he has succeeded on a ground which was proposed by the court during the course of argument. The four grounds of appeal which were advanced on behalf of the practitioner were largely incoherent and have no doubt required the LPCC to incur unnecessary costs in responding to them. It is my provisional view that those costs, for which the practitioner should bear responsibility, should be set off against the costs to which the practitioner might be entitled by reason of his success, with the result that there should be no order as to costs.2
- The other members of the court (Buss JA and Edelman J) agreed with those views.3
3 Notwithstanding the expression of those views, the practitioner has applied for an order that the LPCC pay 50% of his costs of the appeal. The only argument put in support of that application was to the effect that the practitioner was ultimately successful and that he incurred at least some costs which were not directly referable to the grounds of appeal that were described by the court as 'largely incoherent'. However, that proposition misses the point of the earlier observations of the court. The point of those observations was to the effect that the costs to which the practitioner should be entitled by reason of his success should be set off against the costs to which the LPCC should be entitled because of the unsatisfactory nature of the grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of the practitioner, with the result that those countervailing entitlements effectively cancelled each other. Nothing said in support of the practitioner's application for costs diminishes the force of that reasoning, which should be maintained. Accordingly, there will be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
______________________________________
1Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115.
2 [2014] WASCA 115 [55].
3 [2014] WASCA 115 [119], [161].
Details
- AGLC
- Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115 (S)
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 115 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Mr Giudice, was a legal practitioner who had been subject to a disciplinary proceeding by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and a penalty. Mr Giudice sought to appeal the decision, arguing that the penalty was excessive and that the process was unfair. The committee, in turn, sought to have the appeal dismissed and for costs to be awarded against the appellant for the unnecessary costs incurred due to the unsatisfactory grounds of appeal.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether an order should be made as to costs of the appeal, particularly in light of the unsatisfactory grounds of appeal presented by the appellant. The court had to consider the circumstances under which costs should be awarded in an appeal and the principles guiding such decisions. The court also needed to assess whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to warrant costs being awarded against the appellant.
The court found that the grounds of appeal presented by Mr Giudice were unsatisfactory and did not meet the required standard. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and concise grounds of appeal to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. While the committee sought costs for the unnecessary costs incurred, the court decided that no order should be made as to costs of the appeal. The court reasoned that, although the grounds of appeal were unsatisfactory, there were mitigating factors that warranted a departure from the usual rule of awarding costs against the appellant. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to make no order as to costs, given the specific circumstances of the case.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether an order should be made as to costs of the appeal, particularly in light of the unsatisfactory grounds of appeal presented by the appellant. The court had to consider the circumstances under which costs should be awarded in an appeal and the principles guiding such decisions. The court also needed to assess whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to warrant costs being awarded against the appellant.
The court found that the grounds of appeal presented by Mr Giudice were unsatisfactory and did not meet the required standard. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and concise grounds of appeal to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. While the committee sought costs for the unnecessary costs incurred, the court decided that no order should be made as to costs of the appeal. The court reasoned that, although the grounds of appeal were unsatisfactory, there were mitigating factors that warranted a departure from the usual rule of awarding costs against the appellant. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to make no order as to costs, given the specific circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
No order as to costs of the appeal
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.