Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2017] FCA 394

Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2017] FCA 394

The Registrar did not err in principle. Rule 40.27(4), given its ordinary meaning, required the taxing officer to allow only costs to which the applicants were entitled, notwithstanding r 40.27(3), so the Registrar could disallow unsupported costs even if no objection had been taken. The GST component was properly disallowed because the applicants made no GST disclosure. The asserted evidentiary error was not established, and the applicants' failure to comply with r 40.34(2)(b) meant they had not identified the variations sought. The review applications were therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Taxation of Costs / Determination of Applications for Review of Taxations of Two Bills of Costs Carried Out by a Registrar as Taxing Officer
Outcome
Applications for review of the taxation of costs dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['construction of R 40.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'notice of Objection to Costs' 'gst on Disbursements' 'review of Taxation of Costs' 'compliance With R 40.34(2)(b)']
['taxation of Costs' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['construction of R 40.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'notice of Objection to Costs' 'gst on Disbursements' 'review of Taxation of Costs' 'compliance With R 40.34(2)(b)']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Taxation of Costs / Determination of Applications for Review of Taxations of Two Bills of Costs Carried Out by a Registrar as Taxing Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether r 40.27(3)(a) prevented the taxing officer from taxing off amounts for items to which no objection had been taken.' 'Whether r 40.27(4) authorised or required the taxing officer to allow only costs to which the party was entitled despite r 40.27(3).' 'Whether a notice of objection that did not comply with r 40.25(1)(b) could be treated as no notice of objection for r 40.27(3).' 'Whether the Registrar erred by disallowing GST on disbursements where the applicants made no GST disclosure.' 'Whether the Registrar failed to consider the evidence when disallowing items in the bills of costs.' "Whether the applicants' non-compliance with r 40.34(2)(b) affected the applications for review."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar did not err in principle. Rule 40.27(4), given its ordinary meaning, required the taxing officer to allow only costs to which the applicants were entitled, notwithstanding r 40.27(3), so the Registrar could disallow unsupported costs even if no objection had been taken. The GST component was properly disallowed because the applicants made no GST disclosure. The asserted evidentiary error was not established, and the applicants' failure to comply with r 40.34(2)(b) meant they had not identified the variations sought. The review applications were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for review of the taxation of costs dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The applications for review of the taxation of costs be dismissed.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondent.' 'Liberty be granted to the respondent to apply for a lump sum costs order within seven days.']