• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Football Tasmania was formed after the 1998 football season to take over control and management of Australian Rules Football in Tasmania. The TFL entered members voluntary liquidation on 25 February 1999 and was deregistered on 3 March 2000. [3] In October 2001, Marshall J dismissed the underlying application. His costs order distinguished between costs incurred on or before 23 September 2001, payable on a party-and-party basis, and later costs, which were to be allowed except insofar as unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred. [5] The Full Court dismissed an appeal from that decision. [6]

The present judgment concerns the taxation of Football Tasmania’s bill of costs, not the original copyright and novation claims. Football Tasmania filed its bill on 30 November 2001. After taxation, the taxing officer issued a certificate for $13,787.60, plus $750 in taxation costs. [7] An earlier assessment figure was $11,500.60. Following the history of objections set out in the reasons, MAS sought review under O 62 r 44(1). [1], [7]

The applicant, represented in person by Mr John Wheaton, raised three broad complaints: some work had been charged at $220 per hour as counsel; excessive time had been allowed for tasks said to be simple; and the amount on taxation differed from the assessment figure. [8] The Court’s orders dismissed the notice of motion and required MAS to pay Football Tasmania’s costs.

Why the court decided this way

Heerey J began with the governing character of the review. The authority identified as laying down the applicable approach was Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth, considered alongside House v The King. The judgment treats the taxing officer’s decision on quantum as generally final, subject to a narrow review role. The Court can examine whether the officer proceeded on a wrong principle, including whether an item should be allowed and how much should be allowed. But when no principle is involved and the dispute concerns the exercise of discretion, the Court is reluctant to intervene unless discretion was not exercised or was exercised in a manifestly wrong way. A dispute about amount alone calls for an extreme case. [9]

That framework answered an important question about the nature of the review. In Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Australian Rubber Gloves, Olney J had suggested that a review should be conducted as if the judge were the original decision-maker, referring to constitutional limits on federal judicial power. Heerey J rejected that approach. He considered it inconsistent with the thrust of Australian Coal and Shale and observed that the principles in that case had long been applied to review of discretionary decisions by federal courts without turning the reviewing judge into the original decision-maker. [10]–[12] The Court therefore did not approach the bill as though it were conducting taxation anew.

On the counsel rate, O 62 r 35 allowed a taxing officer to allow a counsel’s fee considered just and reasonable, having regard to the practice of the relevant State or Territory Supreme Court. [13] The relevant Tasmanian provision, r 863(11) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), permitted a practitioner who acted as both solicitor and counsel to receive a proper counsel’s fee, while requiring the taxing officer to have regard to the dual role. [14] The taxing officer accepted that Mr Abel’s Supreme Court counsel rate was $220 per hour and did not consider the rate unreasonable or excessive. Heerey J found no error of principle and no manifest excess. [15]–[16]

The time entries raised a different, predominantly factual question. The applicant challenged items 22, 33, 35, 43 and 51. The judgment gives particular detail about item 22, six hours for considering instructions and preparing two affidavits, and item 51, thirty hours for work that included research, a notice of motion and written submissions. The applicant proposed lower amounts for those items. [17] The taxing officer had examined Mr Abel’s files and was satisfied that the recorded time was accurate and that the amounts were not unreasonable or unreasonably incurred. He also noted that the item 51 claim did not in fact add a separate amount for general care and attention. [18]

Heerey J treated the taxing officer’s conclusion about time spent as a question of fact. There was no suggestion that the officer misunderstood the time records, and no claim that his evaluation of reasonableness rested on a wrong principle. Merely proposing that less time would be reasonable did not demonstrate a reviewable error on these facts. [19]

Finally, the assessment figure did not establish error simply because it was lower than the taxed figure. The Court explained that the assessment procedure under O 62 r 46 may produce a figure above or below the amount reached by detailed taxation. The difference between $11,500.60 and the taxed amount therefore did not itself show that the taxing officer had erred. [20] With none of the grounds established, the motion was dismissed with costs. [21]

Before and after state of the law

This judgment presents the governing review approach as already established by earlier authority, rather than announcing a new test. It relies on Australian Coal and Shale, House v The King and Schweppes’ Ltd v Archer for the distinction between an error of principle and a challenge to discretionary judgment about amount. [9] It also discusses Titan v Babic, which applied the Schweppes formulation subject to a possible qualification drawn from Pacific Dunlop. Heerey J did not identify a need to resolve the possible qualification discussed in Titan; instead, he directly rejected Pacific Dunlop’s suggestion that the judge should act as original decision-maker. [10]–[12]

The “before” position in the reasons is therefore a body of authority favouring restrained review, alongside a suggested alternative approach in Pacific Dunlop. The judgment resolves that tension for the matter before Heerey J by holding that the alternative approach contradicts the thrust of Australian Coal and Shale. It states that reviews of discretionary decisions have not generally been conducted as though the reviewing judge were the original decision-maker. [12]

The “after” position that can be safely described from this source is limited to the decision itself: Heerey J applied the restrained review framework to this taxation review and dismissed the motion. The supplied judgment does not provide later decisions showing how other courts treated this ruling. It therefore does not establish, by itself, the subsequent history or current status of the approach beyond what is stated in these reasons.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [9], the judgment explains that a review can address a wrong principle, but that a discretionary decision about costs is not ordinarily reopened merely because a different amount might have been preferred. In plain English, a party challenging a taxation must identify more than disagreement with the taxing officer’s evaluation. A legal or procedural misstep, a failure to exercise discretion, or a manifestly wrong exercise may matter; a bare difference about the amount faces a high threshold.

At [12], Heerey J says that treating the reviewing judge as the original decision-maker conflicts with the established approach. In plain English, review is not an opportunity for the judge to start the taxation again and substitute a fresh view simply because the judge might assess the work differently.

At [16], the Court finds no error of principle in accepting the $220 hourly rate and says the amounts do not appear manifestly excessive. This applies the general test to the particular rate: the taxing officer used the relevant Tasmanian practice, and the applicant did not show a reviewable flaw.

At [19], the Court characterises the taxing officer’s conclusion about recorded time and reasonableness as factual. In plain English, the taxing officer had considered the practitioner’s files and made a factual evaluation. On the material identified in the reasons, a different estimate proposed by the applicant did not establish that the officer had made an error.

At [20], the Court says that the O 62 r 46 assessment may be higher or lower than the figure reached after detailed taxation. In plain English, the assessment and the final taxed bill are not necessarily identical, so the difference alone does not prove that the taxation was wrong.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a review of a taxing officer’s decision under O 62 r 44(1) where a party argues that particular costs were allowed at an excessive rate or for excessive time. The reasons emphasise the need to distinguish a claimed error of principle from disagreement with the officer’s factual assessment or discretionary evaluation. [9], [16], [19]

It is also relevant where a party compares an earlier assessment with the result of detailed taxation. The judgment states that such a difference, without more, does not demonstrate error because the assessment may be above or below the eventual taxation figure. [20]

The factual setting included a costs order with different bases for costs incurred before and after a specified date, a professional who acted as counsel, and detailed time entries for legal research and preparation. [5], [13]–[18] Those details explain the specific disputes, but the judgment’s stated review principles are not confined in its text to these precise kinds of work.

The reasons do not decide what would amount to a manifestly wrong decision in other circumstances, nor do they specify what evidence would be sufficient in a different taxation review. They establish the threshold and apply it to the record described in this case.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself refers to earlier authorities, including Australian Coal and Shale, House v The King, Schweppes’ Ltd v Archer, Titan v Babic and Pacific Dunlop. It applies the first three as part of the governing framework, considers Titan’s reference to a possible qualification, and rejects the original-decision-maker approach attributed to Pacific Dunlop. [9]–[12]

It also records the procedural history of the underlying proceeding: Marshall J dismissed the application in Wheaton v Football Tasmania Limited, and the Full Court dismissed an appeal in Market Advisory Services (MAS) v Football Tasmania Ltd. Those references describe earlier steps in the dispute; the reasons do not analyse those decisions as later treatment of the taxation-review principle. [5]–[6]

The supplied judgment contains no post-2003 decisions or other information about how later courts treated Marketing Advisory Services v Tasmanian Football League Inc. It would therefore be unsupported to describe any subsequent application, approval, limitation or rejection of this decision. A separate later-case search would be needed to answer that historical question, but the present analysis is confined to the judgment supplied.

Still-open questions

The reasons do not define a comprehensive test for when an exercise of discretion is “manifestly wrong”. They state the threshold and apply it to the particular record, but do not set out a checklist or catalogue of examples beyond the distinction between error of principle and disagreement about quantum. [9], [16], [19]

The judgment also does not determine how the review framework would operate where a party identifies an actual error in the time records, a misapplication of a costs rule, or an inadequate consideration of relevant material. Heerey J noted that no mistake in the time records or wrong principle had been suggested in this case. [19] The reasons therefore leave those different factual situations open.

The interaction between the potential qualification mentioned in Titan and the approach in Pacific Dunlop is addressed only to the extent necessary for this application. Heerey J rejects Pacific Dunlop’s suggestion that the judge should act as the original decision-maker, but the reasons do not undertake a wider account of constitutional limits or discuss every possible form of review under other rules. [10]–[12]

Finally, the judgment does not establish that every gap between an assessment and a taxed amount is immaterial. Its specific point is that the difference alone did not show error, because the assessment procedure may yield a higher or lower figure. [20] Whether other evidence accompanying such a difference could demonstrate an error was not decided in these reasons.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.