District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWDC 55 Hearing dates: 11 and 12 May 2011 Decision date: 19 May 2011 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Peter Johnstone Decision: Appeal allowed in part only
Catchwords: COSTS ASSESSMENT - appeal from assessment by a costs assessor of party/party costs payable pursuant to court orders - whether any decisions of the costs assessor as to a matter of law were shown to be in error - whether the costs assessor had proper regard to the indemnity principle - whether the plaintiffs were denied procedural fairness - whether the costs assessor should have awarded costs of the assessment to the plaintiffs rather than to the defendant Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the UCPR
Legal Profession Act 2004Cases Cited: Brierley v Reeves t/as Kaplan Reeves & Co [2000] NSWSC 305
CSR Ltd v Eddy [2008] NSWCA 82
Diemasters Pty Limited v Meadowcorp Pty Ltd (Unreported, NSWSC, Master Macready, 16 July 2003)
East West Airlines Limited v Turner [2010]NSWCA 53
EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Pty Ltd [1982] 2 All ER 980
Flexible Manufacturing Systems Pty Ltd v Alter [2004] NSWSC 29
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
Frumar v The Owners of Strata Plan 36957 [2006] NSWCA 278
Furber v Gray [2002] NSWSC 1144
General of Berne Insurance Co v Jardine Reinsurance Management Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 301
Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son [2005] NSWSC 277
Honest Remark Pty Ltd v Allstate Explorations NL [2008] NSWSC 439
Huggard v Huggard (1902) 8 ALR 178
Larsen v Vale [1999] NSWCA 397
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
McCausland v Surfing Hardware International [2010] NSWDC 222
O'Connor v Fitti [2000] NSWSC 540
Qantas Airways Ltd v Dillingham Corp (Unreported, NSWSC, Rogers J, 14 May 1987)
Randall Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2009] NSWDC 118
Re Dibbs and Farrell (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 249
Richfort Pty Ltd v Baluyut (1999) 152 FLR 203
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2011] VSCA 55
Skalkos v Assaf [2002] NSWSC 1221
Smith v Smith [1906] VLR 78
Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470
Turner v Pride [1999] NSWSC 850
Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145
Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
John Francis Fielding (Second Plaintiff)
CPC Energy Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Mr R D Marshall of counsel with Ms Bampton of counsel (Plaintiffs)
Ms J McDonald of counsel (Defendant)
R BadgeryLegal Pty Ltd
CLS Legal Solicitors
File Number(s): 2010/351240 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The plaintiffs have appealed to the District Court from an assessment of party/party costs made by a costs assessor under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act).
The defendant became entitled to recover party/party costs from the plaintiffs as a result of orders made by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of New South Wales on 14 December 2007 for the payment to it…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2011] NSWDC 55
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd was a plaintiff against CPC Energy Pty Ltd, a defendant, in a legal dispute which was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case centred on an assessment of party/party costs, with Bellevarde Constructions appealing the costs assessment ordered by a costs assessor. The key issues in the case revolved around whether the costs assessor had erred in any legal decisions, if the indemnity principle was properly considered, whether Bellevarde Constructions was denied procedural fairness, and if the costs of the assessment should have been awarded to Bellevarde Constructions instead of CPC Energy.
The court examined the decisions of the costs assessor and found that while the assessor had correctly applied the principles of indemnity, there were some errors in the application of the law. The court further considered whether procedural fairness had been observed in the assessment process and concluded that Bellevarde Constructions had not been denied procedural fairness. However, the court found that the costs of the assessment should have been awarded to Bellevarde Constructions rather than CPC Energy, as per the usual rules in such cases. The court's decision was that the appeal should be allowed in part, reflecting the need for a correction in the allocation of costs assessment.
The orders of the court reflected the findings in the decision. The appeal was allowed in part, and the costs of the assessment were to be awarded to Bellevarde Constructions instead of CPC Energy. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of proper legal reasoning and procedural fairness in cost assessments, and ensured that the parties' rights were appropriately recognised and enforced.
The court examined the decisions of the costs assessor and found that while the assessor had correctly applied the principles of indemnity, there were some errors in the application of the law. The court further considered whether procedural fairness had been observed in the assessment process and concluded that Bellevarde Constructions had not been denied procedural fairness. However, the court found that the costs of the assessment should have been awarded to Bellevarde Constructions rather than CPC Energy, as per the usual rules in such cases. The court's decision was that the appeal should be allowed in part, reflecting the need for a correction in the allocation of costs assessment.
The orders of the court reflected the findings in the decision. The appeal was allowed in part, and the costs of the assessment were to be awarded to Bellevarde Constructions instead of CPC Energy. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of proper legal reasoning and procedural fairness in cost assessments, and ensured that the parties' rights were appropriately recognised and enforced.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part only
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.