The plaintiff was granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from broadcasting any video or audio of the plaintiff relevant to particular subject matter. The plaintiff now seeks an order for payment of her costs of the application for the interim injunction to be taxed and paid immediately. The defendant opposes that order. It submits that the appropriate order is that the costs of the application should be costs in the cause.
Held per Stanley J:
1. The exercise of the court’s discretion and the justice of this case warrants an order that the plaintiff have her costs of the application for an interim injunction in any event (at [11]).
2. The interests of justice require that the plaintiff be permitted to recover her costs at this stage (at [17]).
3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application for an interim injunction. Those costs are to be taxed and paid immediately (at [19]).
BENSON v SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED [2015] SASC 185
Civil
STANLEY J:
Introduction
In this matter I granted the plaintiff an interim injunction restraining the defendant from broadcasting any video or audio of the plaintiff relevant to particular subject matter.
The plaintiff has sought an order for payment of her costs of the application for the interim injunction. The defendant opposes that order. It submits that the appropriate order is that the costs of the application should be costs in the cause.
6SCR 263(1) provides that, as a general rule, costs follow the event. That general rule is qualified by 6SCR 263(2) which provides that the general rule is subject to specific rules to the contrary and to prescribed exceptions, none of which are relevant to this case.
(1) Subject to the express provisions of this Act, and to the rules of court, and to the express…
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.
Continue reading Benson v Seven Network (Operations) Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Benson v Seven Network (Operations) Limited [2015] SASC 185
Case
[2015] SASC 185
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Benson and Seven Network (Operations) Limited came before the court in a dispute over the appropriate allocation of costs in relation to an application for an interim injunction. The case was decided by the court on the basis of the defendant's acceptance that costs should be paid on the basis that the matter was fit for senior counsel. The plaintiff, Benson, sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from broadcasting certain material. The defendant, Seven Network, accepted that costs should be awarded to the plaintiff and that the matter was fit for senior counsel.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate allocation of costs in relation to the application for an interim injunction. The court had to determine whether the matter was fit for senior counsel and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs. The court also had to consider the nature and extent of the costs to be awarded, including whether they should be taxed and paid immediately.
The court found that the matter was indeed fit for senior counsel and that the plaintiff was entitled to costs. The court certified the matter fit for senior counsel, acknowledging the complexity and significance of the issues involved. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application for an interim injunction. These costs were to be taxed and paid immediately, reflecting the court's view that the matter warranted the involvement of senior counsel and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover their costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
The defendant accepts that costs should be paid on the basis that the matter was fit for senior counsel.Conclusion I order the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application for an interim injunction. Those costs are to be taxed and paid immediately. I certify the matter fit for senior counsel.