FUGRO SPATIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD -v- CIFUENTES [2011] WASCA 102 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 102 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:150/2009	Heard:	9-10 NOVEMBER 2010 & ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MARTIN CJ McLURE P MAZZA J	Delivered:	20/04/11
Supplementary Delivered:	10/06/11
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals allowed in part Sixth respondents' cross-appeal dismissed Seventh respondent's cross-appeal allowed in part Sixth and seventh respondents to pay to the first and second appellants 80% of the costs of the appeals in CACV 150 of 2009 and CACV 151 of 2009, the sixth respondents' cross-appeal and the seventh respondent's cross-appeal The first and second appellants' costs to be apportioned as to 20% to the sixth respondents and 80% to the seventh respondent
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FUGRO SPATIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD ALEC PENBERTHY MALCOLM ANTHONY CIFUENTES MICHAEL BRIAN KNUBLEY JULIE ANNE WARRINER JANET GRAHAM OZAN PERINCEK NAUTRONIX (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD L-3 COMMUNICATIONS NAUTRONIX LTD AARON BARCLAY
Catchwords:	Costs Where successful party increased costs by the introduction of some issue or issues on which he failed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1), O 66 r 1(3) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Case References:	Amaca Pty Ltd v Moss [2007] WASCA 162(S) Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd v Cifuentes [2011] WASCA 102

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : FUGRO SPATIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD -v- CIFUENTES [2011] WASCA 102 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ

McLURE P

MAZZA J

HEARD : 9-10 NOVEMBER 2010 & ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 20 APRIL 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 10 JUNE 2011 FILE NO/S : CACV 150 of 2009

CACV 151 of 2009

BETWEEN : FUGRO SPATIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

First Appellant

ALEC PENBERTHY

Second Appellant

AND

MALCOLM ANTHONY CIFUENTES

First Respondent

MICHAEL BRIAN KNUBLEY

Second Respondent

JULIE ANNE WARRINER

Third Respondent

JANET GRAHAM

Fourth Respondent

(Page 2)

OZAN PERINCEK

Fifth Respondent

NAUTRONIX (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS NAUTRONIX LTD

Sixth Respondents

AARON BARCLAY

Seventh Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MURRAY J

Citation : CIFUENTES -v- FUGRO SPATIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD [2009] WASC 316

File No : CIV 1312 of 2008, CIV 2279 of 2009

Catchwords:

Costs - Where successful party increased costs by the introduction of some issue or issues on which he failed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1), O 66 r 1(3)

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Result:

Appeals allowed in part

Sixth respondents' cross-appeal dismissed

Seventh respondent's cross-appeal allowed in part

(Page 3)

Sixth and seventh respondents to pay to the first and second appellants 80% of the costs of the appeals in CACV 150 of 2009 and CACV 151 of 2009, the sixth respondents' cross-appeal and the seventh respondent's cross-appeal

The first and second appellants'…

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 Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd v Cifuentes

Details

AGLC: Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd v Cifuentes [2011] WASCA 102 (S)
Case: [2011] WASCA 102 (S)
Decision Date: 20 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd v Cifuentes, the dispute revolved around the costs incurred in a legal battle between the parties. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the primary judge had already ruled on the costs incurred by the successful parties. The court had to determine whether the successful parties were entitled to a full recovery of their costs, despite the fact that they had introduced some issues that they ultimately failed on.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the successful parties could recover the full amount of their costs, even though they had raised certain issues that did not succeed. The court had to consider the principles of costs in litigation and whether the unsuccessful introduction of some issues could affect the recovery of costs by the successful parties.

The Court of Appeal held that the successful parties were entitled to recover a portion of their costs, but not in full. The court found that the successful parties had not acted unreasonably in introducing the issues that ultimately failed. However, because the introduction of these issues had increased the costs of the litigation, the court decided that the successful parties should only be awarded 80% of their costs. The remaining 20% was to be borne by the successful parties themselves. The court also considered the appeals and cross-appeals from the various respondents and decided on the apportionment of costs among the parties accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals were allowed in part, the sixth respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed, and the seventh respondent's cross-appeal was allowed in part. The sixth and seventh respondents were ordered to pay 80% of the costs of the appeals to the first and second appellants. The costs of the first and second appellants were to be apportioned such that 20% was to be borne by the sixth respondents and 80% by the seventh respondent. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the principles of costs in litigation and the conduct of the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals allowed in part

Sixth respondents' cross-appeal dismissed

Seventh respondent's cross-appeal allowed in part

Sixth and seventh respondents to pay to the first and second appellants 80% of the costs of the appeals in CACV 150 of 2009 and CACV 151 of 2009, the sixth respondents' cross-appeal and the seventh respondent's cross-appeal

The first and second appellants' costs to be apportioned as to 20% to the sixth respondents and 80% to the seventh respondent

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.