Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Cachia v Hanes

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1994, April 1 Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson and McHugh JJ.

The respondents failed in proceedings against the appellant in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. They unsuccessfully sought orders requiring the appellant to restore structural support to their land at Castle Hill. The respondents were legally represented but the appellant was not. On 7 October 1987 costs were awarded in favour of the appellant against the respondents. On taxation, a Master disallowed many items claimed by the appellant in his bill of costs.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales dismissing by a majority (Clarke and Handley JJ.A., Kirby P. dissenting) an appeal from the order of the Master on the review of the taxation of the appellant's costs [1] . The grant of special leave, pursuant to which this appeal is brought, was confined to the disallowance of the appellant's claim for compensation for the loss of his time spent in the preparation and conduct of his case and for out of pocket expenses, being travelling expenses, associated with the preparation and conduct of his case.

1. Cachia v Hanes (1991), 23 N.S.W.L.R. 304.

The claims for loss of time were quantified in the bill of costs at $85 per hour. This figure was based on the fees charged by the appellant as a self-employed consulting engineer. However, the taxing officer found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the appellant had lost money from his consulting practice in defending the case.

Section 76(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 NSW ("the Act") provides:

Subject to this Act and the rules and subject to any other Act: