AJH Lawyers v Mathieson Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor

[2015] VSCA 227

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Taxation of costs
4. › Review of costs order of judicial registrar by Costs Judge
5. › Nature of review under s 17HA of Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic)
6. › Whether review by way of hearing de novo
7. › Whether demonstration of error required
8. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 17HA
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Review of discretionary costs orders
4. › Principles governing appellate review of costs discretion
5. › House v The King error
6. › Strong presumption in favour of correctness of decision appealed from
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Judicial registrars
3. › Powers and jurisdiction
4. › Whether judicial registrars exercise delegated power
5. › Relationship between judicial registrars and judges or associate judges
6. › Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), s 75A(5)
7. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 17GA, 113M
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Costs Court proceedings
4. › Whether denial of procedural fairness where matters not significant to decision and onus of establishing error not discharged

Quick Take

A review under s 17HA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) of a costs order made by a judicial registrar of the Costs Court is not a hearing de novo; the applicant must demonstrate House v The King error. The word 'review' in s 17HA takes its meaning from context and does not mandate a fresh hearing, particularly given the express exclusion of Costs Court determinations from the de novo hearing requirement in s 113M(5). Where the Rules are silent as to procedure on a s 17HA review, r 1.15(1)(b) applies and the Costs Judge may adopt the long-standing principles governing review of taxation decisions.