Smoothpool & Anor v Pickering & Ors No. SCCIV-88-2452

[2001] SASC 131

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Taxation of costs
4. › Lump sum costs order
5. › Jurisdiction to award lump sum in lieu of taxed costs
6. › Whether court functus officio after earlier costs order
7. › Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA), r 101.01(1)(a)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Taxation of costs
4. › Lump sum costs order
5. › Evidentiary requirements
6. › Whether sufficient evidence to make meaningful assessment
7. › Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA), r 101.01(1)(a)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Interim allocatur
4. › Whether court has power to grant interim allocatur independently of taxation
5. › Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA), r 101.13

Quick Take

A court that has previously ordered taxed costs retains jurisdiction under r 101.01(1)(a) to subsequently award a lump sum in lieu of those taxed costs and is not functus officio. However, an applicant for lump sum costs must provide sufficient evidence — including at minimum a draft of costs in some form and an expert opinion based on examination of the files — to enable the court to make a meaningful and fair assessment. A hearing on a lump sum application is not conducted item by item as on a taxation, and the lump sum awarded will not necessarily be the figure that would have been arrived at on taxation.