EASTLAND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS -v- WHISSON & ORS [2005] WASCA 144 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASCA 144 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	FUL:104/2002	Heard:	11 & 12 APRIL 2005
Coram:	STEYTLER P MCLURE JA	Delivered:	4/08/05
Supplementary Delivered:	30/09/05
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EASTLAND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (059 479 391) FEE-ZONE PTY LTD INTER-CONTINENTAL CORPORATION PTY LTD MAXWELL EDMUND WHISSON DEAN BRIAN PRESTIDGE SILVERFERN NOMINEES PTY LTD as trustee of the Prestidge Family Trust (070 887 722)
Catchwords:	Costs of the appeal and lifting of stay Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Whisson & Ors [2005] WASCA 144 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : EASTLAND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS -v- WHISSON & ORS [2005] WASCA 144 (S) CORAM : STEYTLER P

MCLURE JA

HEARD : 11 & 12 APRIL 2005 DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 30 SEPTEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 104 of 2002 BETWEEN : EASTLAND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (059 479 391)

First appellant

FEE-ZONE PTY LTD

Second appellant

INTER-CONTINENTAL CORPORATION PTY LTD

Third appellant

AND

MAXWELL EDMUND WHISSON

First respondent

DEAN BRIAN PRESTIDGE

Second respondent

SILVERFERN NOMINEES PTY LTD as trustee of the Prestidge Family Trust (070 887 722)

Third respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : TEMPLEMAN J

Citation : EASTLAND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS -v- WHISSON & ORS [2002] WASC 150

File No : COR 347 of 1999

Catchwords:

Costs of the appeal and lifting of stay - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders made

Category: B

(Page 3)

Representation:

Counsel:

First appellant : Mr P I Jooste QC and Mr D K J Skender

Second appellant : Mr P I Jooste QC and Mr D K J Skender

Third appellant : Mr P I Jooste QC and Mr D K J Skender

First respondent : Mr C G Colvin SC and Mr B W Ashdown

Second respondent : Mr C G Colvin SC and Mr B W Ashdown

Third respondent : Mr C G Colvin SC and Mr B W Ashdown

Solicitors:

First appellant : Gadens Lawyers

Second appellant : Gadens Lawyers

Third appellant : Gadens Lawyers

First respondent : B W Ashdown

Second respondent : B W Ashdown

Third respondent : B W Ashdown

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Whisson & Ors [2005] WASCA 144

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

1 STEYTLER P & MCLURE JA: These reasons concern the costs connected with the appeal in Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Whisson & Ors [2005] WASCA 144. On 4 August 2005 the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, there be…

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 Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson 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: [2005] WASCA 144 (S)
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson, the parties involved were Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Whisson, the respondent. The dispute arose out of an appeal concerning the costs associated with the appeal process and the lifting of a stay order. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the costs of the appeal should be awarded to the respondent and whether the stay order placed on the proceedings should be lifted. The court needed to consider the principles of costs in the context of appeals and the circumstances under which a stay order may be lifted.

The court determined that the costs of the appeal should not be awarded to the respondent, Whisson. The court reasoned that the appeal was not entirely without merit, and thus, the usual rule of costs following an unsuccessful appeal did not apply. Regarding the stay order, the court found that there were sufficient grounds to lift the stay based on the specific facts of the case, allowing the proceedings to continue. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the circumstances and the law applicable to both issues.

The final orders made by the court were that the costs of the appeal were not to be awarded to the respondent and that the stay order on the proceedings was to be lifted, allowing the case to proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

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.