ARDIZZONE -v- VALENTINO NOMINEES PTY LTD [2015] WADC 95

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 95
Case No:	CIV:987/2015	Heard:	5 JUNE 2015
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	10/08/15
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff pay defendant costs of the O 14 application
PDF Version

Parties:	JOSEPH ANTONINO ARDIZZONE VALENTINO NOMINEES PTY LTD JAMES COLBY PAULA CHARMAINE COLBY CRI PROPERTY PTY LTD WALTER LA ROCCA
Catchwords:	Practice Application by defendants for costs arising from an O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court application
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	BP Refinery (Western Port) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1984) 149 CLR 337 Morgan v Pallister [2004] WASC 188 Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd v Clambake Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 76 Ridgepoint Corp Pty Ltd v McCallum Donovan Sweeney (A Firm) [2011] WASC 167

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ARDIZZONE -v- VALENTINO NOMINEES PTY LTD [2015] WADC 95 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 5 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 10 AUGUST 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 987 of 2015 BETWEEN : JOSEPH ANTONINO ARDIZZONE

Plaintiff

AND

VALENTINO NOMINEES PTY LTD

First Defendant

JAMES COLBY

First Named Second Defendant

PAULA CHARMAINE COLBY

Second Named Second Defendant

CRI PROPERTY PTY LTD

Third Defendant

WALTER LA ROCCA

Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application by defendants for costs arising from an O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court application

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiff pay defendant costs of the O 14 application

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr Gallagher

First Defendant : Mr Fletcher

First Named Second Defendant : Mr Fletcher

Second Named Second Defendant : Mr Fletcher

Third Defendant : Ms Derham

Fourth Defendant : Ms Derham

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Roe Legal Services

First Defendant : Fletcher Law

First Named Second Defendant : Fletcher Law

Second Named Second Defendant : Fletcher Law

Third Defendant : DLA Piper

Fourth Defendant : DLA Piper

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

BP Refinery (Western Port) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1984) 149 CLR 337
Morgan v Pallister [2004] WASC 188
Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd v Clambake Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 76
Ridgepoint Corp Pty Ltd v McCallum Donovan Sweeney (A Firm) [2011] WASC 167

1 REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff has brought proceedings against the first defendant, as registered proprietor of land in Kenwick (the Kenwick property), the second defendants as directors of the first defendant, the third defendant as the real estate agent company engaged by the second defendant to market the Kenwick property, and the fourth defendant as the real estate agent employed by the third defendant.

2 The plaintiff essentially raises three causes of action: the first pleads that there were implied representations resulting from an email dated 29 November 2012, and in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ardizzone v Valentino Nominees Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WADC 95
Decision Date: 10 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Ardizzone, commenced proceedings against Valentino Nominees Pty Ltd. The dispute involved the interpretation of a contract and the extent of the plaintiff's entitlement to relief under that contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants subsequently filed an application under Order 14 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000, seeking costs associated with the O 14 application.

The court was required to determine the appropriate allocation of costs in relation to the O 14 application. The primary issue was whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, which would entitle the defendants to costs under the rules. The court had to assess the merits of the application and the circumstances surrounding its filing to make this determination.

The court found that the application was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The application was made in good faith and was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and the facts. The court considered the nature of the relief sought, the arguments presented, and the overall conduct of the parties. As a result, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the O 14 application. The court emphasised the importance of parties conducting their litigation in a manner that is fair and respectful of the court's time and resources.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff pay defendant costs of the O 14 application

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.