Legal Research
Cases
Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver

Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver

Case [2007] SADC 55 17 May 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
FORLYLE PTY LTD v TIVER & ORS
[2007] SADC 55
Ruling of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
17 May 2007
PROCEDURE - COSTS
General rule - Costs follow the event - discretion conferred by s42 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) not fettered by Rules of Court.
Depriving successful party of costs - ordering successful party to pay part of opponent's costs.
District Court Act 1991 (SA) s42; Supreme Court Rules 101.02, referred to.
Copping & ORS v ANZ McCaughan & Anor (1994) 63 SASR 523; Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4, applied.
Westsub Discounts Pty Ltd v Idaps Australia Ltd (No 2) (1990) 94 ALR 310, distinguished.
Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) Unreported, Court of Appeal NSW, 6 July 1994, considered.

FORLYLE PTY LTD v TIVER & ORS
[2007] SADC 55
Introduction

The Court delivered judgment in this matter in relation to substantial issues of liability,[1] reserving to the parties the opportunity to make further submissions concerning the final terms of proposed declarations, as well as interest and costs.
[1] Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver and Tiver (2007) 247 LSJS 349, [2007] SADC 25, 9^th March 2007
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the liquidated sum of $42,500 plus interest to be assessed. A direction was also made for the balance of the sums held in the Suitors Fund relating to the within action be paid forthwith to the plaintiff. The Court otherwise dismissed the plaintiff’s action for a significantly larger award of damages. At the same time it dismissed the substantial portion of the case sought to be made out by the defendants.
Interest on judgment sum
Both parties did not quarrel with the terms of the proposed draft order for declarations, so that will be confirmed. As to the question of interest, they agreed a rate of 7% was applicable over a period of two years and they invited the Court to fix a lump sum. Judgment will be duly entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $42,500 plus interest of $6,000, accordingly.
The issue of costs
That leaves the question of costs, a question not as straightforward as it might at first seem. In order to appreciate the complexities, it is necessary to outline the issues once again. The parties came to a consent agreement to settle during the course of an arbitration of what might for present purposes be called a building dispute. The defendants, to adopt an expression used by their counsel at one point, “reneged” on the agreement, in their submission, because it unlawfully compromised future claims for latent defects, rendering the entire agreement invalid. That contention was rejected, although an offending portion was held to be capable of severance or properly the subject of declarations.
The proceedings were rendered more complicated by the fact that Forlyle pursued what was described as ‘Hadley and Baxendale’ damages. It failed in a claim for up to a…

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.

Continue reading Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver

Details

AGLC: Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver [2007] SADC 55
Case: [2007] SADC 55
Decision Date: 17 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Forlyle Pty Ltd v Tiver was heard in the District Court of South Australia, where the primary dispute was over costs incurred in the proceedings. Forlyle Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought costs from the defendant, Tiver, under the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning that the losing party should pay the costs of the winning party. The dispute centred on whether the discretion provided under section 42 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) could be constrained by the Rules of Court or if it was entirely unfettered.

The legal issue the court had to address was the extent to which the discretion conferred by section 42 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) is bound by the Rules of Court. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the discretion provided by statute could be limited by procedural rules or if it permitted the court to exercise its judgment freely without any constraints imposed by the Rules of Court.

In its reasoning, the court held that the discretion provided under section 42 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) is not fettered by the Rules of Court. The court emphasised that the statute itself confers a broad discretion to order costs as it sees fit, which is not subject to the limitations that might otherwise apply under the procedural rules. Consequently, the court found that the discretion provided by statute allows for a more flexible approach to the awarding of costs, one that is not constrained by the specific provisions of the Rules of Court. This understanding ensured that the court could exercise its judgment to make decisions that are equitable and just in the circumstances of each case.

Orders