Buyquick.com Ltd v Foxgold Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2000] WASC 216
•30 AUGUST 2000
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Buyquick.com Ltd v Foxgold Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 216
[2000] WASC 216
30 AUGUST 2000
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Wiebel [2013] WADC 27
Cases Citing This Decision
28
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Wiebel
[2013] WADC 27
The Which Company Pty Ltd t/as T3 Direct v McNicol
[2002] WADC 217
Pihler v GENDI
[2000] WADC 272
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Remrose Pty Ltd v Allsilver Holdings Pty Ltd
[2005] WASC 251
Remrose Pty Ltd v Allsilver Holdings Pty Ltd
[2005] WASC 251