Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3)

Case [2001] FCA 81

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3) [2001] FCA 81

ROSLYN GAY COOK & ORS V PASMINCO LIMITED & ORS

N 132 OF 2000

LINDGREN J
7 FEBRUARY 2001
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 132 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

ROSLYN GAY COOK
First Applicant

SAMANTHA JOY COOK
(by her next friend ROSLYN GAY COOK)
Second Applicant

VICKI LEAH BLAD
Third Applicant

ASHLEIGH AGARS
(by his next friend VICKI LEAH BLAD)
Fourth Applicant

AND:

PASMINCO LIMITED
ACN 004 368 674
First Respondent

PASMINCO COCKLE CREEK SMELTER PTY LIMITED ACN 000 083 670
Second Respondent

PASMINCO PORT PIRIE SMELTER PTY LIMITED
ACN 008 046 428
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants’ solicitors, Coleman & Greig, pay the respondents’ costs of the applicants’ motion brought by notice of motion filed on 1 August 2000 on the usual party and party basis.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 132 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

ROSLYN GAY COOK
First Applicant

SAMANTHA JOY COOK
(by her next friend ROSLYN GAY COOK)
Second Applicant

VICKI LEAH BLAD
Third Applicant

ASHLEIGH AGARS
(by his next friend VICKI LEAH BLAD)
Fourth Applicant

AND:

PASMINCO LIMITED
ACN 004 368 674
First Respondent

PASMINCO COCKLE CREEK SMELTER PTY LIMITED ACN 000 083 670
Second Respondent

PASMINCO PORT PIRIE SMELTER PTY LIMITED
ACN 008 046 428
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

7 FEBRUARY 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 3)

  1. In this matter I delivered reasons for judgment on 12 May 2000 ([2000] FCA 677) for dismissing the application as incompetent for lack of jurisdiction in the Court to entertain it. On 12 December 2000 I delivered reasons for judgment ([2000] FCA 1819) for ordering the applicants' solicitors, Coleman & Greig, to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis, except the respondents’ costs of their motion seeking that order. I ordered the solicitors to pay the respondents’ costs of that motion on the usual party and party basis.

  2. I will not repeat what I said in either of the earlier judgments and will take them as read.  To the extent of their relevance, they constitute part of my reasons for the order made below.

  3. The orders previously made left outstanding the question of the costs of a motion brought by the applicants by notice of motion filed on 1 August 2000 for an order setting aside a subpoena for production issued on the application of the respondents.  That subpoena was issued on 13 July 2000 and was addressed to Paul G. Gambin of Coleman & Greig.  In paragraph 40 of the reasons for judgment of 12 December 2000 I dealt with that subpoena.  I noted there the motion to set aside the subpoena and the fact that the…

Continue reading Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3) [2001] FCA 81
Case
[2001] FCA 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the matter of Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3) included Cook, an applicant, and Pasminco Ltd, a respondent. The dispute pertained to a motion brought by Cook against Pasminco Ltd, with the nature of the motion concerning costs incurred during a previous motion brought by Cook and dismissed by the court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants, Cook, were entitled to an order that Pasminco Ltd pay the applicants' costs of the motion brought by Cook on 1 August 2000.

The court considered whether the applicants' motion was frivolous or vexatious, and if it had been brought in bad faith, as these factors could influence the decision on costs. The court also assessed the merits of the previous motion and whether it had any reasonable prospect of success. The reasoning of the court focused on the nature of the motion and the circumstances under which it was brought. The court found that the applicants' motion was not frivolous or vexatious and was not brought in bad faith. However, the merits of the motion were such that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Ultimately, the court determined that the applicants were not entitled to an order for costs against Pasminco Ltd. The court held that the applicants' motion did not warrant an award of costs to the applicants, and the respondents' costs of the motion were to be paid by the applicants. The final orders of the court mandated that the applicants' solicitors, Coleman & Greig, were to pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion on the usual party and party basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants’ solicitors, Coleman & Greig, pay the respondents’ costs of the applicants’ motion brought by notice of motion filed on 1 August 2000 on the usual party and party basis.

Note:

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

LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.