› Failure to exercise discretion - Nature and scope of review under r 868 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas)
› Review by way of rehearing
› Whether taxing officer erred in principle or in the exercise of discretion
› Review confined to grounds raised in objections to taxation.
Aust Dig Procedure [1706]
Procedure
› Costs
› Taxation and other forms of assessment
› Principles of taxation or assessment - Solicitor's profit costs
› Perusal
› Disallowance of perusal items
› Further affidavit evidence provided in support of objections
› Taxing officer declined to receive further evidence
› Failure to reconsider and review disallowed items
› Error established in rejecting further evidence
› Remittal for reconsideration.
Aust Dig Procedure [1690]
Quick Take
1On a review under r 868 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), the applicant is strictly confined to the objections made and determined under r 867. Alleged errors of principle in the taxing officer's original approach that were not fairly raised by those objections cannot be entertained, and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider them.
2Where an objection under r 867 specifically challenges a disallowance and relies on further evidence of apparent probative value, the taxing officer must reconsider and review the item in light of that evidence. Declining to receive it because the officer did not seek it, or refused similar evidence at the taxation, is a failure to undertake the reconsideration r 867 requires.
3Rule 837(8A) permits a single additional fee amount assessed as a separate gross sum having regard to the circumstances of the case. It does not authorise a percentage uplift on other items, and no 'established standard' (such as ACT practice described in [name withheld]) binds the taxing officer's discretion. The criterion in r 837(8A)(c) is 'skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility', which differs materially from 'care'.
