DEL BORRELLO -v- RICHARDSON [2001] WASCA 153 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 153 (S) | |
| Case No: | SJA:1220/2000 | 27 APRIL 2001, 3 APRIL 2006 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 27/04/01 | |
| 16/08/06 | |||
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHELA DEL BORRELLO ALLAN RICHARDSON |
Catchwords: | Order that non-party be made liable for costs whether non-party was effective litigant Whether contempt or abuse of process of court Whether interests of justice required order to be made |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 107(1)(a) Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 66 r 1 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1) |
Case References: | Carborundum Abrasives Pty Ltd v Bank of New Zealand (No 2) [1992] 3 NZLR 757 Del Borrello & Anor v Cook [2001] WASCA 12 Del Borrello & Anor v Ninyett [2001] WASCA 13 Del Borrello v Richardson [2001] WASCA 153 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick (1999) 168 ALR 383 Duskwood Pty Ltd v Bellara Willows Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 281 Hayward v Giffard (1838) 150 ER 1399 Hearsey v Pechell & Ors (1839) 132 ER 1179 HPM Pty Ltd v Fear [2002] WASCA 249(S) Knight v F P Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155 Money Tree Management Services Pty Ltd v The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2000] SASC 63 Re Sturmer and Town of Beaverton (1912) 25 OLR 566 Vestris v Chapman (1998) 72 SASR 449 Del Borello v Friedman & Lurie (a firm) [1999] WASC 17 Del Borello v Friedman & Lurie (a firm) [2001] WASCA 348 Del Borello v Friedman and Lurie, unreported; HCt of Aust; Library No P64/2001; 24 October 2002 Del Borello v J Corp Pty Ltd, unreported; HCt of Aust; Library No P2/1996; 4 September 1996 Yates v Boland [2000] FCA 1895 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DECISION : 16 AUGUST 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1220 of 2000 BETWEEN : MICHELA DEL BORRELLO
- Appellant
AND
ALLAN RICHARDSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MAGISTRATE P G THOBAVEN
File No : PE 2469 of 2000, PE 2471 of 2000
Catchwords:
Order that non-party be made liable for costs - whether non-party was effective litigant - Whether contempt or abuse of process of court - Whether interests of justice required order to be made
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 107(1)(a)
Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 66 r 1
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1)
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D S McManus
Respondent : Mr M E Paterson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Brian Smith & Stewart
Respondent : Michael Paterson & Associates
Continue reading Del Borrello v Richardson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Del Borrello v Richardson [2001] WASCA 153 (S)
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 153 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Del Borrello, the plaintiff, brought an action against Richardson, the defendant, in the Federal Court. The dispute arose from an application to have a non-party, who was not directly involved in the proceedings, made liable for costs. The application was based on the contention that the non-party had acted as an effective litigant and that their conduct amounted to contempt or an abuse of the court's process. The plaintiff argued that the interests of justice required the non-party to be ordered to pay costs.
The court was required to determine whether the non-party could be considered an effective litigant and whether their conduct warranted an order for costs. The court also had to consider whether the non-party's conduct amounted to contempt or an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the interests of justice required the non-party to be made liable for costs.
The court found that the non-party did not act as an effective litigant and that their conduct did not amount to contempt or an abuse of the court's process. The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require the non-party to be made liable for costs. As a result, the application was dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the non-party could be considered an effective litigant and whether their conduct warranted an order for costs. The court also had to consider whether the non-party's conduct amounted to contempt or an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the interests of justice required the non-party to be made liable for costs.
The court found that the non-party did not act as an effective litigant and that their conduct did not amount to contempt or an abuse of the court's process. The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require the non-party to be made liable for costs. As a result, the application was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.