CACHIA v ISAACS AND ORS [1989] NSWCA 31

CACHIA v ISAACS AND ORS [1989] NSWCA 31

The taxing officer's discretion miscarried because the appellant, as a litigant in person, was entitled to recover from the respondents the actual out of pocket expenses incurred for items such as typing, photocopying, service of documents, conduct monies, and other necessary expenditures, in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules Pt52 R23(2); however, he was not entitled to remuneration for preparation or attendance at court (except as witness).

Parties
Appellant: Cachia; Respondents: Isaacs and Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Taxing Officer's Review Under Pt52 R62 SCR
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Litigant in Person, Taxation of Costs, Out of Pocket Expenses, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Litigant in Person Taxation of Costs Out of Pocket Expenses Party and Party Costs

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cachia

Appellant

Isaacs and Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Taxing Officer's Review Under Pt52 R62 SCR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a litigant in person who succeeds in litigation is entitled to recover out of pocket expenses incurred in preparing and attending court in representing self
  2. 2 Whether costs rules permit recovery of expenses for items such as typing, photocopying, service, conduct monies, attendance fees, and other expenses by litigant in person

Ratio Decidendi

The taxing officer's discretion miscarried because the appellant, as a litigant in person, was entitled to recover from the respondents the actual out of pocket expenses incurred for items such as typing, photocopying, service of documents, conduct monies, and other necessary expenditures, in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules Pt52 R23(2); however, he was not entitled to remuneration for preparation or attendance at court (except as witness).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of Grove J dated 10 April 1987 set aside
  • Matter remitted to the taxing officer to reconsider in accordance with the judgment