BUYQUICK.COM LTD -v- FOXGOLD PTY LTD [2000] WASC 216
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 216 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2083/2000 | 21 AUGUST 2000 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J | 30/08/00 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The requirement to confer not being waived, there was a failure to comply with O 59 r 9 | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BUYQUICK.COM LTD (ACN 083 255 083) FOXGOLD PTY LTD (ACN 072 595 325) |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Western Australia Requirement to confer under O 59 r 9 Circumstances in which compliance with O 59 r 9 can be waived Appropriate order as to costs when there is a failure to comply with conferral rule |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court, O 59 r 9 |
Case References: | Nil Cash Converters v Hila (1993) 9 WAR 471 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670 HB Homes Pty Ltd v Beer [1986] 2 Qd R 379 Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport [1986] 1 WLR 657 Queensland v Australia Telecommunications Commission (1985) 59 ALR 243 Russell-Davison v Prosin, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Sanderson); Library No 980277; 22 May 1998 Shepherd Homes v Sandham [1971] 1 Ch 340 Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke v Clayton (1867) 36 LJ Ch 476 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : BUYQUICK.COM LTD -v- FOXGOLD PTY LTD [2000] WASC 216 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 21 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 30 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2083 of 2000 BETWEEN : BUYQUICK.COM LTD (ACN 083 255 083)
- Plaintiff
AND
FOXGOLD PTY LTD (ACN 072 595 325)
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure Western Australia - Requirement to confer under O 59 r 9 - Circumstances in which compliance with O 59 r 9 can be waived - Appropriate order as to costs when there is a failure to comply with conferral rule
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court, O 59 r 9
Result:
The requirement to confer not being waived, there was a failure to comply with O 59 r 9
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Ms V Stylianou
Defendant : Mr M E Paterson
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Metaxas & Vernon
Defendant : Michael Paterson & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Cash Converters v Hila (1993) 9 WAR 471
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670
HB Homes Pty Ltd v Beer [1986] 2 Qd R 379
Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport [1986] 1 WLR 657
Queensland v Australia Telecommunications Commission (1985) 59 ALR 243
Russell-Davison v Prosin, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Sanderson); Library No 980277; 22 May 1998
Shepherd Homes v Sandham [1971] 1 Ch 340
Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke v Clayton (1867) 36 LJ Ch 476
(Page 3)
1 TEMPLEMAN J: The plaintiff carried on the…
Continue reading Buyquick.com Ltd v Foxgold Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Buyquick.com Ltd v Foxgold Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 216
- Case
- [2000] WASC 216
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Buyquick.com Ltd filed a claim against Foxgold Pty Ltd, seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary dispute was whether the requirement to confer under Order 59 Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (WA) could be waived and, if not, what the appropriate costs order should be for the failure to comply with the conferral rule.
The court was tasked with determining if the procedural requirement to confer, as outlined in Order 59 Rule 9, could be waived. If not, it had to consider the appropriate costs consequences for the failure to comply with this rule. The plaintiff argued that the failure to confer should result in a costs penalty, while the defendant contended that the conferral requirement should be waived and that the plaintiff's application for costs should be dismissed.
The court found that the requirement to confer under Order 59 Rule 9 could not be waived. The conferral rule is a mandatory procedural requirement intended to ensure that parties attempt to resolve their disputes before proceeding to trial. The court held that the failure to confer resulted in a costs penalty. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the conferral requirement should be waived and ordered that the plaintiff's application for costs should proceed. The court made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for costs in a specified amount.
The court was tasked with determining if the procedural requirement to confer, as outlined in Order 59 Rule 9, could be waived. If not, it had to consider the appropriate costs consequences for the failure to comply with this rule. The plaintiff argued that the failure to confer should result in a costs penalty, while the defendant contended that the conferral requirement should be waived and that the plaintiff's application for costs should be dismissed.
The court found that the requirement to confer under Order 59 Rule 9 could not be waived. The conferral rule is a mandatory procedural requirement intended to ensure that parties attempt to resolve their disputes before proceeding to trial. The court held that the failure to confer resulted in a costs penalty. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the conferral requirement should be waived and ordered that the plaintiff's application for costs should proceed. The court made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for costs in a specified amount.
Orders
Orders of the court
The requirement to confer not being waived, there was a failure to comply with O 59 r 9
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.