22 Mr Levine, counsel for Mr Brott in these present proceedings, submitted that there was no evidence upon which her Honour could conclude that there had been improper conduct or negligence on behalf of Mr Brott in issuing the initial proceedings. It is apparent, however, that her Honour did not make a finding that Mr Brott had been negligent. The evidence is overwhelming that Mr Kersting was not the registered owner of the car; if Mr Brott or his employees had in fact taken instructions from Mr Kersting and had asked the one fundamental question, which clearly was not asked, the proceedings would never have been issued in Mr Kersting's name. It was for this reason that her Honour held that the costs of the defendant were incurred without reasonable cause and improperly. Indeed, it appears that Mr Brott argued agency and bailment in an effort to overcome this basic deficiency, and in that way Mr Parker was called upon to answer a case that should never have been brought. True it is that Mr Brott does not owe a duty of care to Mr Parker, after all, Mr Parker is not his client, but the Magistrate has complete discretion to award costs under the provisions of s.132 of the Magistrates' Court Act; provided, pursuant to sub-s.(3), that the practitioner has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The section does not require written particulars, the issue of ownership of the car was clearly apparent, the issue of authority to sue was thoroughly canvassed in the evidence of Mr Murdaca, Mr Brott and Mr Kersting and, indeed, was crucial to the question of the recoverability of the cost of the repairs to the car and essential to the bringing of a successful action against Mr Parker. In my view, the findings of her Honour were well open on the evidence before her.