Easton v Griffiths

[1995] HCATrans 203

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSCRIPT

Western AustraliaLevel 4Law Courts Building1 Victoria AvenuePerth WA 6000GPO Box 9955Perth WA 6001Phone [phone]Fax [phone]        

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TOOHEY J

No P 19 of 1995

BRIAN MAHON EASTON

and

CLIVE EDWARD GRIFFITHS and OTHERS

PERTH

9.28 AM, THURSDAY, 20 JULY 1995

Continued from 18.7.95

HIS HONOUR:   The plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction was heard on 18 July.  I have concluded that the application should be dismissed.  I publish my reasons.  Make them available to counsel, please.  Are there any matters arising out of that decision?

MR MITCHELL:   Yes, your Honour.  I would move that the application be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the fifth defendant's costs of the application. 

HIS HONOUR:   What do you say about that, Mr Ludlow?

MR LUDLOW:   Your Honour, the usual order made in interlocutory applications such as this one is that costs be reserved and I ask for an order that costs be reserved.  I ask for that also on the basis that this is an action where all of the parties are persons who have access to Government funds to assist them with defending the action so that they are not going to suffer any personal loss as a result of the application.

HIS HONOUR:   I am not sure that it is right to say that the usual order for costs in interlocutory proceedings is that the costs are reserved.  That may well be the case if the application is successful.  If it is unsuccessful, there does not seem to be any particular basis why costs should not be ordered, save for the matter that you have just raised in regard to public funding.

MR LUDLOW:   The only other submission I have is that when the second defendant's application was dismissed in the Supreme Court, the order made on that application was that costs be reserved.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  Do you want to say anything in response, Mr Mitchell?

MR MITCHELL:   I do not know that the fact that Government funds might be involved in the case of the fifth defendant anyway is really a reason for not making an order as to costs.  The Government has its budgets and is concerned to look after its expenditure as much as many private organisations, at least and it would seem to me that reserving costs at this stage is really just putting off the point when the issue is going to be dealt with and your Honour being freshly aware of the matter is probably in the best position to deal with that now.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Yes, I see no reason why the ordinary rules should not prevail in that there should be an order for costs in favour of the fifth defendant.  Are there any other submissions?  Ms Rankin?

MS RANKIN:   Yes, your Honour, we would make the same request in respect of the costs of the second defendant that they be paid by the plaintiff.
HIS HONOUR:   That would be costs if ordered on the basis that your client sought and was granted leave to withdraw at the outset of the hearing?

MS RANKIN:   ...(indistinct)... joined as a party and - yes, certainly.

HIS HONOUR:   Oh, yes, I understand that and that if costs are ordered that must be a matter of taxation.

MS RANKIN:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   But it is on record that your client was granted leave to withdraw at the outset.

MS RANKIN:   Certainly. 

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Ludlow, having made an order for costs in favour of the fifth defendant is there any basis on which I should distinguish that order in the case of the second defendant?

MR LUDLOW:   No, other than that as your Honour mentioned, that they withdrew so costs will be less, yes. 

HIS HONOUR:   Well, that is a matter going to the quantum of the costs.  There will be an order for costs in favour of the second defendant.  Mr Pendlebury?

MR PENDLEBURY:   Your Honour, I would make a similar application as that made by the second defendant.

HIS HONOUR:   On behalf of?

MR PENDLEBURY:   The first and the fourth defendants, your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:   And that is again on the footing that your clients were granted leave to withdraw at the outset of the hearing. 

MR PENDLEBURY:   Yes, your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Ludlow?

MR LUDLOW:   I have no further submissions, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well.  There will be an order for costs in favour of the first and fourth defendants.  The court will now adjourn.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY