Kimpura Pty Ltd & Anor v JWH Group Pty Ltd & Anor

[2004] WASCA 134

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Leave to appeal from costs order
4. › Whether decision wrong or attended with sufficient doubt
5. › Whether substantial injustice would result
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60(1)(e)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Discretion
4. › Whether Order 66 rule 2(a) creates mandatory costs regime
5. › Effect of prefatory words 'In the absence of any special order'
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Costs orders
4. › Standard for grant of leave
5. › House v The King error required
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60(1)(e)

Quick Take

Order 66 rule 2(a) of the WA Supreme Court Rules does not create a mandatory costs regime displacing the court's general discretion under s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA); the prefatory words 'In the absence of any special order' preserve the court's power to make a different costs order. An applicant for leave to appeal a costs order must demonstrate House v The King error, not merely disagreement with the judge's assessment of relative success.