Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2]
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
•2 MAY 2014
| JURISDICTION | : | SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL |
| CITATION | : | AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT LTD -v- JACKSON [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 (S) |
| CORAM | : EDELMAN J | ||
| HEARD |
| ||
| DELIVERED |
| ||
| FILE NO/S |
| ||
| BETWEEN |
|
AND
BRETT LESLIE JACKSON
First Defendant
GRAEME MICHAEL GOFF
Second Defendant
BUNBURY CENTRO PTY LTD
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Appropriate orders as to costs - Whether any declaration should be made - Whether taking of an account should be ordered
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
Result:
Action dismissed reserved costs
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Plaintiff | : | Mr M L Bennett |
| First Defendant | : | Mr J Vaughan SC & Mr T Hobday |
| Second Defendant | : | Mr J Vaughan SC & Mr T Hobday |
| Third Defendant | : | Mr J Vaughan SC & Mr T Hobday |
Solicitors:
| Plaintiff | : | Bennett & Co |
| First Defendant | : | Lewis Blyth & Hooper |
| Second Defendant | : | Lewis Blyth & Hooper |
| Third Defendant | : | Lewis Blyth & Hooper |
Cases referred to in judgment:
Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR
564
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
Bowen v Alsanto Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 39 (S)
Carey v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2013] WASCA 195 (S)
Collie v Merlaw Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] VSCA 40
Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn [2010] NSWSC 737; (2010) 240 FLR 187
Foyster v Foyster Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 768
Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1621
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435
Hightime Investments Pty Ltd v Lungan [No 2] [2010] WASC 296
Joyce v Palassis [No 4] [2008] WASC 45
Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2013] FCA 613
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
One.Tel Ltd (in liq) v Rich [2005] NSWSC 226
O'Rourke v P & B Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S)
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Primary Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd (formerly Landmark Underwriting
Agency Pty Ltd) v Kilborn [2007] NSWSC 158
Taylor v O'Beirne [2010] QCA 188
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
EDELMAN J:
The supplementary issues addressed in this judgment
1 On 28 March 2014, I delivered reasons for decision in this matter.
Three outstanding issues arise from those reasons for decision. Those issues are as follows.
1. Whether any declarations should be made. 2. Whether an account should be ordered against Messrs Jackson and Goff. 3. The appropriate orders as to costs. 2 For the reasons expressed below, no orders should be made for any
declaration or for the taking of an account. The appropriate order as to costs is that the plaintiff pays the defendants' costs of the action, including reserved costs on a number of identified dates.
Declarations in relation to the breaches found
3 Section 1317E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that if a 'Court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision, it must make a declaration of contravention'. The civil penalty provisions listed in the table accompanying s 1317E(1) includes s 601FD(3), which I found to have been contravened by all the defendants. The civil penalty provisions also include s 180(1), which I found to have been contravened by Messrs Jackson and Goff.[1]
[1] Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 [299].4 Although s 1317E(1) is expressed in apparently mandatory terms, it
must be read in the context of s 1317J which provides that an application for declaration of contravention may be made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). In Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff,[2] Besanko J referred to, and applied, the principle from numerous cases that have held that a declaration of contravention under s 1317E will only be made in proceedings brought by ASIC.[3]
[2] Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2013] FCA 613.[3] Foyster v Foyster Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 768 [9] (Barrett J); One.Tel Ltd (in liq) v Rich [2005]
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
This is sufficient to dispose of any possibility of a declaration under
s 1317E.
6 Counsel for Agricultural also suggested that a declaration should be
made of breach of fiduciary duty. There are three reasons why this
submission must be rejected.7 First, no declaration was sought by Agricultural. A plea of 'such
further or other relief as the Court considers just' does not give a defendant notice that a declaration is sought. It is too late now for that notice to be given.
8 Secondly, the basis for a declaration is s 25(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) permits 'binding declarations of right' without consequential relief. But courts only make declarations concerning the rights of parties.4 Legal rights include claim rights, powers, privileges and immunities. They do not include observations about breaches of duty that have no legal consequence. Declarations are not granted where they will 'produce no foreseeable consequences for the parties'.5
9 Thirdly, the orders to be made are those that are consequent upon my
reasons for decision. Nothing in my reasons for decision contemplates a
declaration of breach of fiduciary duty.
An account of profits
10 In my reasons for decision I raised the possibility of an order that
Messrs Jackson and Goff, as accountable parties, account for any profit they made from their breach of fiduciary duty.
There are three immediate difficulties with ordering such an account. I recognised these in my judgment.6
12 The first is that an accounting exercise would be likely to be futile
since I determined that no profit was made. Even putting to one side the boundaries of issue estoppel, there are systemic considerations of legal policy in permitting the same issue to be litigated twice in the same proceedings. As Lord Hoffmann has explained, these are considerations
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
that a person should not be troubled twice for the same reason and the
need to avoid duplication of determinations.713 Secondly, although the defendants are strictly accounting parties, and
although it may have been open to Agricultural simply to seek an accounting, Agricultural ran its case as an attempt to prove loss and corresponding profit. To order an accounting would also give Agricultural a second bite at the cherry.
14 Thirdly, as I explained, I was not aware of any case where an
accounting is ordered in circumstances in which a plaintiff has tried, and failed, to prove that any profit at all was made from the breach. Senior counsel for the defendants has also pointed to authorities that recognise the requirement that a plaintiff must plead that a profit has been made.8 It follows from this that an account of profits should not be ordered where a plaintiff has pleaded, but failed to prove, that any profit was made.
No order should be made for an account of profits.
The appropriate costs orders
Agricultural seeks various alternative orders as to costs. They are as
follows.
(i) No order as to costs.
(ii) The defendants pay Agricultural's costs of the action to be taxed but with a reduction of 50% and various allowances.
(iii) Agricultural pay the defendants' costs of the action to be taxed but with (a) a reduction of 50% of those costs, (b) no allowance for preparation of witness statements or expert reports for witnesses not called by the defendants, (c) a set off for costs thrown away by reason of the defendants' amendments to the defence and the abandonment of issues at trial of matters pleaded in the defence, (d) a set off for reserved costs orders that should be made in favour of Agricultural, (e) a set off for the costs of the defendants' security for costs application, and (f) a set off for the costs of hearings on 18 September 2013, 6 November 2013 and 8 November 2013.
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
17 As to the first two proposed orders, the starting point is that the
defendants were successful in the action. The relief sought by Agricultural against each defendant was compensation under s 1317H of the Corporations Act, equitable compensation or an account of profits. Each claim for relief failed.
18 Although an award of costs is discretionary, the success of the
defendants means that the Court will generally order that they recover their costs.9 Fairness dictates that the unsuccessful party typically bears the liability for the costs of the unsuccessful litigation.10
19 Agricultural argues in favour of its proposed orders (i) and (ii) above
(no order as to costs, or for the defendants to pay Agricultural's costs) because it says that it was partly successful at trial. Plainly, it was not successful in obtaining any of the relief it sought. But Agricultural says that it was partly successful on the discrete issue of liability. Agricultural says that it succeeded on the discrete issue of liability but failed on 'damages' which precluded any relief.11
20 In Bowen v Alsanto Nominees Pty Ltd,12 in a passage recently reiterated,13 the Court of Appeal explained the reasons why such orders are not made as a matter of course when a plaintiff succeeds on a discrete issue:
The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, order that a successful party recover only a portion of its costs where that party has been unsuccessful in respect of certain discrete issues. But that should not be done as a matter of course. To embark as a general practice upon an analysis of which party was successful on each issue, or necessarily to deprive a successful party of some portion of its costs if it has lost on a particular issue, would be likely to add further uncertainty and complexity to the outcome of litigation, derogate from the prospect of settlement, and oblige the court to hear lengthy and frequent arguments in relation to costs as an additional burden on its resources and the costs of the parties: see MacKinnon v Petersen (Unreported, NSWSC, 19 April 1989) (Cole J); Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 [67] - [68] (McHugh J). Litigation is time-consuming, expensive and burdensome enough already.
In addition, while parties should be encouraged to consider carefully what matters they put in issue, justice may not be served if by too ready a resort
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
to deciding questions of costs according to success on particular issues, parties are dissuaded by the risks of costs from canvassing all issues which might be material to the decision in the case: Doric Products Pty Ltd v Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 282; NRMA Ltd v Morgan (No 3) [1999] NSWSC 768 [24].
21 In this case, as a matter of general impression, these considerations
mean that this is not an appropriate case in which there should be any departure from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to its costs.
22 In any event, in O'Rourke v P & B Corporation Pty Ltd,14 the Chief Justice said that the Court should only adjust a costs order by reference to particular issues if 'it is clear that [(i)] those issues were significantly discrete, [(ii) they] raised costs that can be separately and specifically determined, and [(iii) they] were issues upon which the unsuccessful party has demonstrably failed'.15
23 I do not accept the submission by counsel for Agricultural that the
issues of liability were significantly discrete from those concerning compensation or the account of profits. One reason for this is that it is, at least, strongly arguable that loss is an element of an action for negligence in equity. A second reason is that the extent of any loss on the sale of the Kalgoorlie Property or Licence is a matter which would be relevant to any inference drawn concerning liability issues such as whether the directors acted in good faith or in the best interests of Agricultural.
24 Nor do I accept that the evidence to which the liability issues and the
compensation issues related was independent. The expert evidence concerning the value of the Kalgoorlie Property and Licence was not merely relevant to a quantification of any alleged loss that was suffered. As I have explained, it was also relevant to the question of liability in a number of ways such as whether the directors acted in the best interests of Agricultural, or whether they acted in good faith, or whether they acted for proper purposes.
25 Nor do I accept that these were issues upon which the defendants
demonstrably failed. One significant part of Agricultural's case in relation to liability was its claim concerning losses in relation to the Project Management Agreement. Agricultural failed in that part of its case because it was time barred and lacking in a factual basis.16 Agricultural
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
also failed to prove numerous contraventions and breaches alleged against the defendants. All of the first group of alleged breaches failed.17 All of the contraventions within the fourth group of alleged breaches failed.18 All of the contraventions within the fifth group of alleged breaches failed.19 A number of the breaches in the sixth and seventh group of alleged breaches failed.
26 Finally, I do not accept that any of the issues upon which
Agricultural succeeded appreciably increased the costs of the trial. The point could be tested by asking whether the trial would have been abbreviated if the defendants had conceded all of the issues on which Agricultural succeeded. My conclusion is that any reduction in trial time would have been almost non-existent. For instance, as senior counsel for the defendants submitted, the only issue upon which I found for Agricultural that was not conceded by the defendants, or based upon a matter conceded by the defendants, was in relation to breach of fiduciary duty. My finding in relation to breach of fiduciary duty involved no different factual basis from issues raised in relation to the remainder of the trial and the submissions on this point occupied only nine lines of Agricultural's lengthy closing submissions.
27 Counsel for Agricultural pointed to seven matters about which he
said the defendants abandoned. In relation to all but one of those matters it is more accurate to say either that no positive case was advanced by the defendants or that they were irrelevant to the central issues at trial. The matter abandoned was that there were no members of the Kalgoorlie Scheme at the relevant time. In relation to all matters, none of them had any substantial effect on the length of trial, nor were any of them clearly discrete issues about which costs could be specifically determined.
For these reasons, the proper order is that Agricultural pay the defendants' costs to be taxed if not agreed.
Whether the costs order should be adjusted
The remaining question then is whether that order should be adjusted, or supplementary orders made, in relation to:
(i) preparation of witness statements or expert reports for witnesses not called by the defendants;
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
(ii) costs thrown away by reason of the defendants' amendments to the defence and the abandonment of issues at trial of matters pleaded in the defence;
(iii) reserved costs orders that should be made in favour of Agricultural;
(iv) costs of the defendants' security for costs application; and
(v) costs of hearings on 18 September 2013, 6 November 2013 and 8 November 2013.
30 Agricultural submitted that orders should be made in relation to any
of these matters for which it was entitled to costs setting off those costs against costs orders in the defendants' favour. The term 'set-off' is sometimes used in different senses. Its primary, and correct, sense is to refer to cross-demands. It appears that this is the sense in which counsel for Agricultural used it. It is in the discretion of the taxing officer to set-off these cross-demands in the taxation of costs.20 No order of set off requiring the taxing officer to do so should be made.
Preparation of witness statements and expert reports for witnesses not called
31 As to preparation of witness statements or expert reports for
witnesses not called by the defendants, counsel for Agricultural sought orders that the defendants' entitlement to costs and disbursements not include 'any allowance or disbursements for the preparation of witness statements or expert reports of witnesses not called by the defendant at the trial of the action'.
32 The witnesses and experts to which counsel for Agricultural is
referring are the defendants, Mr Jackson and Mr Goff, as well as the reports from Mr Catlin that were not tendered and a report from a quantity surveyor, Mr Bird.
33 I do not consider it appropriate to exclude these matters from the
order for costs in favour of the defendants. It may turn out to be that the preparation of the witness statements and expert reports of any or all of these witnesses are not costs which are allowed. But the failure to call a witness is not automatically a disentitling factor for recovery of those costs. It might depend, for example, on the prudence and reasonableness of the decision to prepare the witness statements, and upon why the
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
decision was said to have been made not to call the witness, and upon
when that decision was made. I received no submissions on these points.
This is a matter that should be left to the taxing officer.
Costs thrown away by reason of the 20 September 2013 amended defence
35 As to these costs thrown away, an order has already been made in the
terms sought by Agricultural. On 25 September 2013, I ordered that the defendants pay Agricultural's costs thrown away by reason of the amended defence dated 20 September 2013.
Costs that were reserved
As to the reserved costs orders upon which Agricultural sought its costs, these were orders made on 23 October 2009, 6 November 2009, 13 November 2009, 20 November 2009, and 15 January 2010.
37 All of these hearings were conducted long before the matter was
admitted into my list in the Commercial and Managed Cases List. All hearings were status conferences conducted before a registrar. The orders made, and time recorded for each hearing in the Integrated Courts Management System, is set out below.
The orders on each occasion were as follows:
(a)
23 October 2009 (12 minutes): adjourning the status conference to 6 November 2009;
(b)
6 November 2009 (30 minutes): adjourning the status conference to 13 November 2009 and ordering that Agricultural serve a minute of amended statement of claim as soon as practicable and that there be conferral on that amended statement of claim;
(c)
13 November 2009 (8 minutes): adjourning the status conference to 20 November 2009;
(d)
20 November 2009 (20 minutes): adjourning the status conference to another day to be fixed and ordering Agricultural to make any application for leave to amend its statement of claim by 4 December 2009; and
(e)
15 January 2010 (15 minutes): granting Agricultural leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim,
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
consequential orders in relation to the defence, and leave
for the defendants to withdraw an admission.
39 My associate has conducted an electronic search of ICMS and no
recording of those hearings is available, nor was there any transcript on the court file. However, the solicitor for the defendants (who appeared at all of the status conferences above) made submissions before me this morning and also handed up copies of transcripts for the first four of those hearings. He submitted that all of the status conferences involved issues including deficiencies in Agricultural's statement of claim and proposed amendments to Agricultural's statement of claim. That submission is supported by the orders, the time taken, and the transcripts which I have read this morning.
40 The solicitor for the defendants submitted that the proposed
amendment by Agricultural was concerned with the complaint that the defendants had about Agricultural's pleading which was that it did not explain the loss that had been suffered. I accept this submission. At the first status conference, the exchange was substantially concerned with this question of quantum. The Registrar concluded the hearing by saying that it was 'worrying' that the solicitors for Agricultural (who were not its solicitors at trial) had allowed the matter to proceed this far without considering what a reasonable fee would have been for the Licence.21 Ultimately, it was pleaded that the Licence had no value, a claim that I rejected.
41 All of these matters are strong reasons for an order to be made that
the costs of these status conferences be costs of the defendants or, which
now amounts to the same thing, that the costs be in the cause.42 However, on a number of occasions the necessity for a status
conference, and the length of the status conference, appears to have been affected by delays by the defendants in responding to correspondence and absence of proper, timely conferral by the defendants. For instance, it was common ground that a minute of proposed amended statement of claim was provided to the defendants on 24 August 2009. The defendants did not respond to that minute until 20 October 2009. Counsel for Agricultural said that on 22 October 2009, Agricultural responded to that letter from the defendants. I was not told of the contents of that letter, but nothing was said at the status conference on 22 October 2009 to suggest that the point was conceded. At the status conference on 23 October 2009 the Registrar then observed that there were serious deficiencies with the
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
statement of claim and that there needed to be conferral between the
practitioners to sort out the problem.2243 Although the status conference was concerned with the deficiencies
in Agricultural's statement of claim, in the circumstance of the long delay by the defendants in responding to Agricultural's correspondence, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs of the 23 October 2009 status conference.
44 As to the status conference on 6 November 2009, Agricultural
submitted that the defendants' solicitors had again delayed in responding to the letter sent to them on 22 October 2009. A reply had not been received until 3 November 2009, shortly before the status conference on 6 November 2009. Nevertheless, the dispute appeared to be a simple point and Agricultural's solicitor had adequate time to consider the pleading issue which had been in dispute. At the status conference the solicitor who was then acting for Agricultural submitted that it was not necessary for Agricultural to plead what it said the Kalgoorlie Property and Licence were worth. The solicitor for Agricultural said that he could not plead that until he obtained an expert report and that it may be that the Licence was worthless.23 No expert evidence was ever led in relation to the Licence. The status conference concluded with the submission by the solicitor for the defendants to the Registrar that the last time that this matter was adjourned was24
for 14 days ... for the purpose for these matters to be addressed. They haven't been quite addressed [by Agricultural] and my friend tells me that any issues can be attended to in the next few days...
45 The appropriate order is that these costs be in the cause which has
the effect that Agricultural pay the defendants' costs of the status
conference on 6 November 2009.46 As to the status conference on Friday 13 November 2009, a minute
of proposed amended statement of claim was provided by Agricultural to the defendants on 6 November 2009. At the hearing the solicitor for the defendants said that he had received it on Monday 9 November 2009. But, he did not advise Agricultural until 12 November 2009, that counsel would not be able to look at the minute until the following week. There is nothing on the Court file to suggest that the defendants informed the Court that they would not be able to confer prior to the status conference.
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
The status conference before the Registrar had to be adjourned. The Registrar remarked that costs would be reserved because he had expected a response from the defendants in time.25
The defendants should pay Agricultural's costs of the status conference on 13 November 2009.
48 As to the status conference on 20 November 2009, a number of
matters were canvassed during this hearing. One of them concerned particulars of the minute of the proposed amended statement of claim. A letter seeking particulars had only been sent by the solicitors for the defendants one day before the status conference. The letter related, again, to the issue of quantum.
49 The solicitor for Agricultural also accepted before the Registrar that
there was an error in the minute because it referred to the licence having no value. The defendants did not intend to plead that (at that time).26 The Registrar refused leave to amend the pleading and said that 'it still needs another go'.27 There was also a dispute about the absence in the proposed amended statement of claim of any reference to the document which required disclosure of the transaction. The Registrar reserved costs because 'we are dealing with proposed amendments'. He considered it appropriate to deal with them together with any application that is made.28
50 In all the circumstances, the appropriate order is that the costs of the
20 November 2009 status conference be costs in the cause. This means
that they will be the defendants' costs.51 As to the status conference on 15 January 2010, counsel for
Agricultural said that this 15 minute hearing was for Agricultural's application to amend its statement of claim which had been the subject of the difficulties discussed above. The application was allowed. No transcript of that hearing was available when counsel appeared before me this morning. However, one has been located in the archives. It will be provided to the parties prior to any formal order being entered but my preliminary conclusion is that the transcript from that hearing provides a strong basis for an order that Agricultural pay the defendants' costs of that status conference.
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
52 At the hearing, two applications were made: an application by
Agricultural to amend its statement of claim and an application by the defendants to withdraw their admission that Agricultural was a registered entity. Neither application was opposed. The Registrar proposed making orders that Agricultural pay the defendants' costs of the application including reserved costs.29 The solicitor for Agricultural opposed this. He said that some of the earlier directions hearings might have involved late communications from the solicitors for the defendants that made adjournment difficult.30 So costs of the 15 January 2010 hearing were reserved.
53 In these circumstances, there is a strong basis for the appropriate
order to be that the costs of the 15 January 2010 status conference be costs in the cause. This means that they will be the defendants' costs. However, since I have reached this preliminary view by relying upon material that counsel before me this morning has not seen, I will give counsel for Agricultural the opportunity of making any brief submission to the contrary if he wishes to do so.
Costs of the defendants' security for costs application
54 Senior counsel for the defendants submitted in writing that the orders
had already been made on 16 May 2013 that the defendants pay Agricultural's costs of the security for costs application. This point was not pressed at the hearing this morning. I have confirmed from the court file that the submission by senior counsel for the defendants is correct. This order sought by Agricultural is therefore unnecessary.
Costs of hearings on 18 September 2013, 6 November 2013 and 8 November
2013
55 Senior counsel for the defendants submitted in writing that the Court
has already ordered that the defendants pay Agricultural's costs of these hearings. I have confirmed from the court file that the submission by senior counsel for the defendants is correct. This order sought by Agricultural is therefore unnecessary.
Conclusion
56 Unless any further submission in relation to (2) is made by counsel
for Agricultural before 7 May 2014, the appropriate orders are as follows:
[2014] WASC 102 (S)
EDELMAN J
(1) The action be, and is, dismissed. (2) The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the action including the costs reserved on 6 November 2009, 20 November 2009 and 15 January 2010, to be taxed and paid forthwith (if not agreed). (3) There be no order as to the costs of the status conference
on 23 October 2009.(4) The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs reserved on
13 November 2009, to be taxed if not agreed.
NSWSC 226 [68] - [70] (Bergin J); Primary Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd (formerly Landmark Underwriting
Agency Pty Ltd) v Kilborn [2007] NSWSC 158 [6] - [12] (Young CJ in Eq); Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v
Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1621 [28] (Besanko J); Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn [2010] NSWSC 737;
| (2010) 240 FLR 187, 191 - 192 [21] - [23] (Barrett J). 188 [24] (Chesterman JA; Fraser & White JJA agreeing). 5 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564, 582 (Mason CJ, Dawson, | 4 Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, 501 (Lord Diplock); Taylor v O'Beirne [2010] QCA |
| Toohey & Gaudron JJ). | |
| 7 Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615, 701. 8 Hightime Investments Pty Ltd v Lungan [No 2] [2010] WASC 296 [36] (Beech J); Joyce v Palassis [No 4] | |
| [2008] WASC 45 [50] - [51] (Le Miere J); Collie v Merlaw Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] VSCA 40 [10] | |
| 9 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 37; Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 66 r 1(1). 10 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72, 97 [67] (McHugh J). | |
| 11 Agricultural's short costs submissions [11] - [13]. | |
| 12 Bowen v Alsanto Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 39 (S) [6] - [7] (the Court). 13 Carey v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2013] WASCA 195 (S) [3] (the Court). 14 O'Rourke v P & B Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S) [13] (Martin CJ). | |
| 15 O'Rourke v P & B Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S) [13] (Martin CJ). 16 Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 [191] - [215]. 17 Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 [233]. | |
| 18 Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 [256]. 19 Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102 [258]. | |
| 20 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 66 r 59. | |
| 21 ts 5 - 6 (23 October 2009). | |
| 22 ts 5 (23 October 2009). | |
| 25 ts 18 (13 November 2009). 26 ts 21 (20 November 2009). 27 ts 25 (20 November 2009). 28 ts 28 (20 November 2009). | |
| 29 ts 10 (15 January 2010). 30 ts 10 (15 January 2010). |
0
21
4