//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2014] WASC 212
Supreme Court of WA
2014-07-31
Mr P, Beech J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] Affidavit of Cameron Bourhill sworn 19 February 2014 Annexure CAB 1.
[2] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 4.
[3] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 5.
[4] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 6.
[5] Affidavit of Matthew Kilpatrick sworn 5 March 2014 Annexure MK 1.
[6] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 7.
[7] Affidavit of Matthew Kilpatrick sworn 5 March 2014 Annexure MK 2.
[8] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 1[18].
[9] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 [20].
[10] Affidavit of Kristian Cywicki sworn 29 May 2014 Annexure KC 2.
[18] [10.1], these are outlined in more detail at [10.2] to [10.5].
[23] Perrinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 217; (2011) 43 WAR 319 [29] [51]; see also O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 19 [41] [61].
[25] Cape Range Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Austral Construction Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 304 [54] [55] (footnotes omitted); see also Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd v KPA Architects [2014] WASCA 91 [55].
[26] Cape Range v Austral [55].
[28] See, for example, Kidd v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 99 [131].
[29] O'Donnell Griffin [73] [76].
[36] Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd [1997] HCA 53; (1997) 191 CLR 85, 113; R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 166; (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 [3] [32]; The Wilderness Society of WA (Inc) v Minister for Environment [2013] WASC 307; (2013) 45 WAR 471 [167].
[37] Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378 [26]; Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans [2005] HCA 28; (2005) 221 CLR 249 [28].
[40] Perrinepod [7] [8], [121] [126].
[41] As to which see Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 [67] [70].
[43] Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 177 178; Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501 [181]; Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125; (2007) 34 WAR 342 [16]; Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [72].
[44] Cardinal Project Services Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 399; (2011) 81 NSWLR 716 [10], [85] [103], [117].
[45] Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140 [92]; Seabay Properties Pty Ltd v Galvin Construction Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 183 [67]; James Trowse Constructions Pty Ltd v ASAP Plasterers Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 145 [54] [59]; Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 373 [61]; Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 141 [28] [29].
[46] BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 394.
[47] BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [71] (Muir JA), [1], [90] (Holmes JA, Ann Lyons J agreeing).
[49] Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212
[50] Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2012] WASC 210 (S2)
[51] Redhill Iron Ore Ltd v API Management Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 323 (S)
[52] Pourzand [9] [14], [24] [25]
(1) the Scale item is inadequate, and
(2) the inadequacy arises because of the unusual difficulty, or complexity, or importance of the matter: Heartlink Ltd v Jones As Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) [11] (Martin CJ).
These questions are to be addressed as matters of impression rather than detailed evaluation: EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S) [7] (Martin CJ). Courts should draw from their experience and act on impressions gained during the litigation to take into account the issues which have been involved, albeit without attempting to make an estimate of the time which is thought to be appropriate when the information for that assessment is not all available: Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S) [43] (Pullin J).
As to (1) (inadequacy of the Scale item), the inadequacy will be demonstrated if there is a fairly arguable case that the bill to be presented to the taxing officer may tax at an amount which is greater than the limit that would be imposed by the relevant costs determination: Heartlink Ltd [16] (Martin CJ).
A conclusion that it is fairly arguable that the taxing officer might properly allow costs at an amount greater than the amount allowable under the Scale does not always require evidence of the costs actually incurred: Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 [81] (Allanson J; Newnes & Murphy JJA agreeing).
As to (2) (inadequacy arising due to the unusual difficulty, complexity, or importance of the matter), the adjective 'unusual' qualifies only the 'difficulty' of the matter, not its complexity or importance: see, in relation to the identical terms of the predecessor to s 280(2): Heartlink Ltd [17] (Martin CJ); Hodgkinson v Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 237 (S) [33] (Simmonds J); SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26 (S2) [102] - [106] (Roberts-Smith J).
Finally, although replacing the amount of the Scale item with a different ceiling may be appropriate where sufficient information exists to make that assessment, it is not uncommon for an order to be made removing the limit for the Scale item without replacing that limit with a different ceiling: EDWF Holdings [8] - [9], [13] (Martin CJ). When the Scale ceiling is lifted a taxing officer is otherwise unconstrained and need not allow costs above the previous Scale ceiling.
...
The approach sometimes taken to special costs orders, including the approach taken in this case, is to consider whether the whole of the litigation was of unusual difficulty, or complexity, or importance. This is not the correct approach. The question should be asked separately in relation to each item for which the lifting or removal of the Scale is sought. The words of s 280 refer to the inadequacy of the amount of costs allowable 'in respect of a matter under a costs determination' because of the unusual difficulty, complexity or importance 'of the matter'. Section 280 does not contemplate a usual course of removing all limits because of unusual difficulty, complexity or importance. It focuses attention upon particular items.
An application for special costs orders does not require lengthy evidence or submissions on an individual matter of costs. In some cases the same factors of unusual difficulty, or complexity, or importance will apply to all factors for which a lifting of the Scale is sought. But it is possible that an individual matter in litigation might be unusually difficult, or complex, or important, even if the litigation itself is not, or vice versa[52].
(2011) 43 WAR 319
(1997) 191 CLR 85
(1999) 46 NSWLR 681
(2012) 248 CLR 378
(2005) 221 CLR 249
(1995) 184 CLR 163
(2006) 32 WAR 501
(2007) 34 WAR 342
(2013) 45 WAR 471
(2010) 239 CLR 531
(2011) 81 NSWLR 716