Territory Realty Pty Ltd v Garraway (No 3) [2013] FCA 914

Territory Realty Pty Ltd v Garraway (No 3) [2013] FCA 914

The Court held it lacked power under r 3.04 or r 3.11 to review or reverse the preliminary rulings of the taxing officer regarding recusal or the applicable test for taxation, and found that no apprehended bias was shown. The appropriate basis for taxing costs is that which operated at the time the work was done, not at the time of taxation. The applicants' arguments were rejected, and the application was refused.

Parties
First Applicant: Territory Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 009 644 339); Second Applicant: David John Booth; Third Applicant: John David Sanders; First Respondent: Alan Charles Garraway; Second Respondent: Excess Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Bishop Estate Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Review of Preliminary Rulings of Taxing Officer on Taxation of Costs
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Bias (apprehended Bias), Retrospective Application of Rules, Taxation of Costs, Registrar's Powers
Civil Procedure Costs Bias (apprehended Bias) Retrospective Application of Rules Taxation of Costs Registrar's Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Territory Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 009 644 339)

First Applicant

David John Booth

Second Applicant

John David Sanders

Third Applicant

Alan Charles Garraway

First Respondent

Excess Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Bishop Estate Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Review of Preliminary Rulings of Taxing Officer on Taxation of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power under Part 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to review preliminary rulings of a taxing officer on the law applicable to a taxation and on the application for the taxing officer to recuse herself
  2. 2 Whether the taxing officer's acts create a reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether the applicable definition of party and party costs is that in force when costs were incurred or at the time of taxation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it lacked power under r 3.04 or r 3.11 to review or reverse the preliminary rulings of the taxing officer regarding recusal or the applicable test for taxation, and found that no apprehended bias was shown. The appropriate basis for taxing costs is that which operated at the time the work was done, not at the time of taxation. The applicants' arguments were rejected, and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.
  • The applicants pay to the respondents their costs of the application.