Coscom Pty Ltd v Standing Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWSC 114

CITATION: Coscom Pty Ltd v Standing Enterprises Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 114

HEARING DATE(S): 15, 17 and 22 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 February 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Costs of settled proceedings for extension of caveat reserved.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [602] – Supreme Court Procedure – Practice under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules - Costs – Interlocutory proceedings – Costs in the cause – Interlocutory proceedings settled.

LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act 1900 s 74K(2)

CASES CITED: Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622

PARTIES: Coscom Pty Limited (P)
Standing Enterprises Pty Limited (D1)
Charles Arthur Copeland (D2)
Debra Elizabeth Copeland (D3)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1454/06

COUNSEL: R I Bellamy (P)
R J Brender (Ds)

SOLICITORS: Morgan Lewis Atorneys (P)
Sean Wilkins & Company (Ds)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2006

1454/06 COSCOM PTY LIMITED v STANDING ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: At the moment these are proceedings in which the only relief sought is in relation to the extension of a caveat. The substantive proceedings, which will ultimately determine the rights between the parties, have not been commenced. The plaintiff did not originally seek final relief in its summons, nor has it applied to amend its summons to include it, because, bearing in mind the amount involved, its intention was to take that issue up in the Local Court, since the subject matter is within its jurisdiction.

2 However, Mr Brender, of counsel for the defendants, has now announced that he will seek leave to file a cross summons or statement of cross claim in these proceedings to determine the substantive questions, since his clients propose to seek relief which it is not within the jurisdiction of the Local Court to grant. It therefore appears, despite the comparatively small amount involved, that the determination of the substantive questions will proceed in this Court.

3 The argument before me has been as to the costs of the proceedings to date, being the settled proceedings in relation to what was to occur about the caveat. Some interesting questions have arisen in the arguments that have been put before me, including whether or not the proceedings for extension of caveat are in their nature final or interlocutory and, whether or not that be strictly so, whether the costs ought to be dealt with on the basis that such proceedings ought to be regarded as of an interlocutory sort. The principles as to costs in interlocutory applications are, of course, different from the principles on final hearing. In interlocutory applications for an injunction or extension of a caveat a successful plaintiff will usually obtain, not a straight out order for its costs, but an order that the costs of the application be its costs in the proceedings. This will mean that the plaintiff will recover the costs of the interlocutory application if it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coscom Pty Ltd v Standing Enterprises 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 114
Decision Date: 22 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coscom Pty Ltd brought an action against Standing Enterprises Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court, seeking relief related to a contractual dispute. The nature of the dispute centred on the interpretation of certain clauses within a contract between the parties, as well as the enforceability of those clauses. The court was asked to determine whether the contractual terms were clear and whether they were binding on the parties. This required an analysis of the written contract, along with any relevant evidence and legal precedents.

The central legal issue was whether the court should award costs in the cause for the interlocutory proceedings that had been settled. The court needed to consider the relevant provisions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, particularly those concerning costs in the cause, and whether they applied to the settlement of interlocutory matters. The decision hinged on the interpretation of these rules and their application to the facts of the case.

The court held that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules provided for the possibility of awarding costs in the cause for interlocutory proceedings. However, in this case, the court found that the particular circumstances of the settlement did not warrant such an award. The court emphasised that the decision to award costs in the cause should be based on a fair and balanced assessment of the proceedings, and the settlement did not meet the criteria for such an award. As a result, the court declined to award costs in the cause.

No specific final orders were made regarding the costs in the cause, as the court determined that an award was not appropriate in the circumstances. The case proceeded with the remaining substantive issues to be determined at a later date.

Orders