GARNER -v- ROHANNA PTY LTD [1999] WASCA 178
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 178 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1713/1999 | 16 AUGUST 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J PARKER J | 21/09/99 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY ALAN GARNER ROHANNA PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Costs Intersection collision between vehicles Apportionment of liability Claim and counterclaim set off with balance of damages in favour of plaintiff Local Court Magistrate ordered defendant to pay costs of claim and plaintiff to pay costs of counterclaim Order set aside on appeal to District Court Costs awarded on balance due to plaintiff after set off Where claim and counterclaim arise out of same incident or transaction and counterclaim in nature of defence damages awarded should be set off Party entitled to balance entitled to costs on the balance |
Legislation: | Local Courts Act 1904 (WA), s 107(3), s 107(4) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 64 r 4(1), r 4(2) Local Court Rules 1961, O 37 r 4(3) |
Case References: | Alltrans Express Ltd v CVA Holdings Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 394 Cassella v Bradshaw, unreported; FCt SCt of WA (Malcolm CJ, Kennedy and Owen JJ); Library No 970717; 22 October 1997 Clarke v National Westminster Finance Australia Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 6920; 13 November 1987 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Godden v Alford [1960] WAR 235 Medway Oil & Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd [1929] AC 88 Millican v Tucker [1980] 1 All ER 1083 Provincial Bill Posting Co v Low Moor Iron Co [1909] 2 KB 344 Rendell Holdings Pty Ltd v Athans & Taylor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7942; 15 November 1989 Smith v Madden (1946) 73 CLR 129 Van Den Bergh v Whitbread [1960] WAR 33 Winluck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : GARNER -v- ROHANNA PTY LTD [1999] WASCA 178 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
PARKER J
- Appellant (Defendant)
AND
ROHANNA PTY LTD
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Costs - Intersection collision between vehicles - Apportionment of liability - Claim and counterclaim set off with balance of damages in favour of plaintiff - Local Court Magistrate ordered defendant to pay costs of claim and plaintiff to pay costs of counterclaim - Order set aside on appeal to District Court - Costs awarded on balance due to plaintiff after set off - Where claim and counterclaim arise out of same incident or transaction and counterclaim in nature of defence damages awarded should be set off - Party entitled to balance entitled to costs on the balance
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Local Courts Act 1904 (WA), s 107(3), s 107(4)
Rules of the Supreme…
Continue reading Garner v Rohanna Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Garner v Rohanna Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 178
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Garner v Rohanna Pty Ltd involved a dispute arising from an intersection collision between two vehicles. The plaintiff, Garner, sought damages from the defendant, Rohanna Pty Ltd, while the defendant counterclaimed for damages. The matter was initially heard in the Local Court, where the Magistrate determined that the plaintiff was 50% liable for the collision, and the defendant 50% liable. Both the claim and counterclaim arose from the same incident. The Local Court ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the claim and the plaintiff to pay the costs of the counterclaim.
The legal issues before the court were whether the costs orders were appropriate, particularly in light of the set off of damages between the parties. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should bear the costs of both the claim and the counterclaim, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the counterclaim. The District Court was asked to determine the appropriate apportionment of costs given the set off of damages.
In its judgment, the District Court found that the set off of damages between the parties meant that the plaintiff was entitled to a balance after set off. The court held that where the claim and counterclaim arose from the same incident, the party entitled to the balance of damages was also entitled to the costs on the balance. Consequently, the District Court set aside the Local Court's order and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the counterclaim. The defendant's appeal against the costs order was dismissed.
The District Court's decision clarified the principles regarding the apportionment of costs in cases where a claim and counterclaim arise from the same incident. The court confirmed that the party entitled to the balance of damages is also entitled to the costs on the balance. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving similar factual circumstances and ensures that the apportionment of costs aligns with the respective entitlements of the parties.
The legal issues before the court were whether the costs orders were appropriate, particularly in light of the set off of damages between the parties. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should bear the costs of both the claim and the counterclaim, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the counterclaim. The District Court was asked to determine the appropriate apportionment of costs given the set off of damages.
In its judgment, the District Court found that the set off of damages between the parties meant that the plaintiff was entitled to a balance after set off. The court held that where the claim and counterclaim arose from the same incident, the party entitled to the balance of damages was also entitled to the costs on the balance. Consequently, the District Court set aside the Local Court's order and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the counterclaim. The defendant's appeal against the costs order was dismissed.
The District Court's decision clarified the principles regarding the apportionment of costs in cases where a claim and counterclaim arise from the same incident. The court confirmed that the party entitled to the balance of damages is also entitled to the costs on the balance. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving similar factual circumstances and ensures that the apportionment of costs aligns with the respective entitlements of the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.