Andrew Martin v Francis Kenneth Stratman and Rod Manning No. SCGRG 90/468 Judgment No. 3700 Number of Pages 6 Costs Recovery of Costs

The Supreme Court of South Australia was presented with a case involving Andrew Martin, the plaintiff, suing Francis Kenneth Stratman and Rod Manning, the defendants, for damages resulting from an accident involving a piece of machinery. The plaintiff's damages were assessed at $121,632, with judgement entered against the first defendant for $65,245 and the second defendant for $103,387.20, after accounting for the apportionment of responsibility between the defendants and the first defendant's workers compensation credit. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be denied costs under rule 101.02A of the Supreme Court Rules or section 5.42 of the Local and District Criminal Courts Act. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's costs should be apportioned between the defendants in the same proportion as their liability for damages, and whether each defendant should be entitled to recover from the other a rateable proportion of their own costs of the action.

Justice Cox held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover his costs from both defendants, despite the relatively small amount of damages awarded against the first defendant. The court reasoned that it would be unreasonable to deprive the plaintiff of his costs simply because the new costs rules came into effect after the action had been entered for trial. The court also noted that the plaintiff was justified in suing both defendants and could not have been expected to sue one in the Supreme Court and the other in the District Court. Furthermore, the court decided that the Hydrasquirt, the machinery involved in the accident, was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the relevant legislation, thus precluding the application of the stringent costs sanction. Finally, the court granted an order allowing each defendant to recover from the other a proportionate share of the plaintiff's costs, in line with their respective shares of the blame for the plaintiff's injuries.

The final orders of the court included an order that each defendant, with respect to their joint and several liability to pay the plaintiff's costs, had the right to recover against the other defendant a proportionate share of the blame for the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court declined to make an order regarding the defendants' own costs, finding that the second defendant should not be held responsible for the first defendant's decision to defend the plaintiff's claim.