Electro Research International P/L v Stec & Ors No. Scgrg-94-2045 Judgment No. S6602

Electro Research International P/L and others brought proceedings against Stec and others, culminating in a Master's order dated 8 February 1995, which included a costs order. The defendants sought to set aside this order, but the application was dismissed. The plaintiffs subsequently applied for an allocatur for the costs awarded, which was granted on 18 May 1995. Stec, one of the defendants, applied to set aside the allocatur, arguing that he was not served with the bill of costs or notified of the claim for costs. The core legal issues were whether the service of the bill of costs was valid, and if the allocatur was properly issued.

The court found that the bill of costs was indeed served on Scragg, the defendant's solicitor, on 21 April 1995. Despite the defendant's claims that Scragg had ceased acting for him by 11 April 1995, the court found that Scragg was still acting for the defendant on 21 April 1995, based on the defendant's account and the lack of formal notice of change of representation. The court held that the address for service remained valid until proper notice was given, aligning with established rules and precedents. Additionally, the court determined that the allocatur was correctly issued as per Rule 101A, since the defendant failed to respond to the bill of costs within the stipulated period. Although Perry J had set aside the Master's order on 14 August 1995, Olsson J subsequently revived the costs order, reaffirming the validity of the allocatur.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Stec's application to set aside the allocatur, affirming that the service of the bill of costs was valid and the allocatur was correctly issued. The allocatur, as revived by Olsson J's order, remained enforceable.