Sundell v Queensland Housing Commission [No 6] [1954] HCA 45

High Court of Australia Webb J. Sundell v Queensland Housing Commission [No 6] [1954] HCA 45

ORDER Order accordingly.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgment was delivered by:—

Sept. 10 Webb J.

This is an application for an order to review the taxation of the party and party costs of the successful appellant, Sundell, in this Court on an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland setting aside an award of an umpire for the sum of £7,023 2s. 7d. in favour of the appellant. The award was made with respect to one of several disputes referred to arbitration. The appeal was allowed with costs.

This application is in respect of fifteen items in the appellant's bill of costs under the judgment of this Court. With one exception all the items disallowed or in part disallowed were for counsels' fees on brief, refreshers, conference fees and clerks' fees, including the total disallowance of all the fees paid to a third counsel.

The objection of the applicant to the disallowances may be summarized as follows: (1) that the appeal related to the construction of an agreement for the erection of prefabricated houses involving prices amounting in all to over £1,000,000; (2) that the appeal was of great commercial importance to the parties because it determined not only the claims and disputes the subject of this appeal but also questions relating to the jurisdiction of arbitrators and umpires appointed under the agreement and the rights of the parties to require questions and disputes to be referred to arbitration and to the validity of awards; (3) that the agreement was one of great complexity and difficulty; (4) that the appeal involved a close consideration of detailed evidence, the record comprising 2,388 folios; (5) that it was expected that the hearing of the appeal would be lengthy and it did in fact exceed twelve hours; (6) that the counsel concerned had a reputation for great skill and learning; (7) that it was reasonable to have at the hearing of the appeal senior counsel who conducted the case for the appellant before the arbitrator and umpire and was familiar with the evidence so as to argue questions arising on the evidence as it was reasonably expected that the Court might require to hear argument as to the effect of the evidence; (8) that three leading counsel and a junior counsel appeared for the respondent on the appeal, and (9) that the conference occupied more than two hours and there were several consultations where no fee was marked.