HISTORICAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- HILLS HEALTH PTY LTD [2024] WASC 489 | Case summary

Supreme Court of WA|2025-09-05|Before: Seaward J

For the reasons I have given, I am not satisfied that the limit contained in item 11(a) of the 2024 Determination should be removed pursuant to s 141(3) of the Uniform Act, and therefore Hills Health application is dismissed.
My preliminary view is that in these circumstances, Hills Health should pay Historical Holdings' costs of this application on a party‑party basis to be taxed if not agreed. However, I will hear further from the parties in relation to the appropriate orders to give effect to my decision, including as to costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[2] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 76 (S) [11] ‑ [17].

[3] Bolt v Bolt [2023] WASC 162 (S) [8] - [19].

[4] INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd v AIG Australia Ltd [No 3] [2023] WASC 332 (S) [36].

[5] See for example Heartlink Ltd v Jones (as Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd) [2007] WASC 254 (S) [24].

[6] BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v Pt Bayan Resources Tbk [No 5] [2023] WASC 116 [75] ‑ [79] (citations omitted).

[7] Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation Trading as Synergy v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] WASC 469 (S) [4].

[8] See for example Primary Reasons [58] - [59], [62], [71] - [76], [79].

Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001

Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022

On 20 December 2024, I delivered my reasons for decision in relation to Historical Holdings' application for pre-action discovery from Hills Health.[1]
Historical Holdings were successful in their application for pre‑action discovery.
In my orders dated 20 December 2024, I ordered (relevantly) that Historical Holdings pay Hills Health's costs of the pre‑action discovery application on a party‑party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
On 7 February 2025, Hills Health filed a chamber summons, seeking a special costs order pursuant to s 141(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA) (Uniform Law). The hearing of that chamber summons was deferred whilst the parties conferred on issues regarding discovery and inspection.
Hills Health has amended the orders sought in their chamber summons and now seek the following orders:
1. Pursuant to s 141(3) of the Uniform Law, the maximum allowances specified in the 'Time' and '$' columns in Table B, of the Legal Profession (Supreme and District Courts) (Contentious Business) Costs Determination 2024 do not apply for the purpose of a taxation under order 3 of the orders made by the Honourable Justice Seaward on 20 December 2024 in relation to the total hours and total amounts of scale item 11(a); and
2. Historical Holdings pay Hills Health's costs of this chamber summons.
The chamber summons is supported by the affidavit of Michelle Elizabeth Gordon affirmed on 7 February 2025 (Gordon Affidavit).
These reasons should be read with my decision in Historical Holdings Pty Ltd v Hills Health Pty Ltd [2024] WASC 489 (Primary Reasons).
For the following reasons, I will not grant the application for orders under s 141(3) of the Uniform Law.

HISTORICAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- HILLS HEALTH PTY LTD [2024] WASC 489 (20 December 2024)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)