Nationwide News Pty Ltd v A Medical Practitioner

[2011] WASCA 152 (S)

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD -v- A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER [2011] WASCA 152 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 152 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:90/2008	Heard:	8 FEBRUARY 2011
Coram:	MARTIN CJ NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	8/07/11
Supplementary Delivered:	14/09/11
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	The first respondent to pay 75% of the appellant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Appeals Costs
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151 Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151(S) Nationwide News Pty Ltd v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 152

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD -v- A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER [2011] WASCA 152 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ

NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD : 8 FEBRUARY 2011 DELIVERED : 8 JULY 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 14 SEPTEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACV 90 of 2008 BETWEEN : NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
First Respondent

MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : BARKER J

File No : VR 384 of 2005, VR 81 of 2006, VR 97 of 2006, VR 170 of 2006, VR 17 of 2007, VR 18 of 2007, VR 71 of

(Page 2)

2007, VR 72 of 2007, VR 73 of 2007, VR 74 of 2007, VR 130 of 2007, VR 131 of 2007, VR 132 of 2007

Catchwords:

Appeals - Costs

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

The first respondent to pay 75% of the appellant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R Anderson
First Respondent : Mr M L Bennett
Second Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Edwards Wallace Lawyers
First Respondent : Lavan Legal
Second Respondent : No appearance

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

Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151
Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151(S)
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 152
(Page 3)

</CRJ>

(Page 4)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This appeal was allowed in part for reasons published on 8 July 2011 (Nationwide News Pty Ltd v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 152). At the time that those reasons were published, orders were made by consent providing for the exchange of written submissions between the parties with respect to the costs of the appeal on the basis that any issues in respect of the costs of the appeal would be determined by the court without further hearing. These are the reasons for the orders that will be made with respect to the costs of the appeal.

2 This appeal was heard at the same time as a cross-appeal by the appellant, Nationwide, in CACV 30 of 2010. The only ground that was ultimately pursued in this appeal was the same as the ground which was successful in Nationwide's cross-appeal, and for the same reasons: see Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151. In the result, it was only necessary to publish very brief reasons in this appeal recording that fact.

3 Similar directions were made in relation to the resolution of the issues with respect to costs in appeal CACV 30 of 2010 as were made in this appeal. Our reasons for determining those costs issues are to be published at the same time as these reasons: see Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151(S). These reasons should be taken to incorporate the principles which we enunciated in those reasons.

4 The second respondent to this appeal, the Medical Board of Western Australia, took no part in the substantive hearing of the appeal. None of the other parties to the appeal presently seek any order for costs against the Board. Nationwide asserts that it was substantially successful in its appeal, with the consequence that the medical practitioner who resisted the appeal should be ordered to pay its costs, in accordance with the usual rule. On the other hand, the medical practitioner asserts that there were two grounds of appeal, one of which was abandoned at the time the appeal book index was settled, but after costs had been incurred providing written submissions in response to that ground with the result that Nationwide should only receive a portion (50%) of its costs.

5 The ground of appeal which Nationwide abandoned gave rise to readily identifiable and discrete issues upon which Nationwide was not successful, and which resulted in the parties incurring increased costs. Adopting the broad general approach to the evaluation of the relative effort and complexities involved in the two grounds of appeal, one of which resulted in Nationwide's substantial success, and the other of which was abandoned prior to the hearing, we conclude that the appropriate order is that the medical practitioner who is the first respondent be ordered to pay 75% of Nationwide's costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.