GOVE -v- BLACK & ORS [2006] WASC 298 (S2)

Link to Appeal :

[2009] WASCA 181 [2009] WASCA 181(S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 298 (S2)
Case No:	CIV:2375/1997	Heard:	6-9 & 13-21 NOVEMBER 2006, 14 FEBRUARY, 1 MARCH & 7 JUNE 2007
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	20/12/06
Supplementary Delivered:	6/07/07
No of pages:	32	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Contained in Appendix
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	SHARON LEE GOVE RICHARD ASH BLACK ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395) THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175) CITY OF FREMANTLE DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM) HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204) BARNABY PIERRE COLIN WOOD PAUL CHARLES BLACKMAN KYLE THEODORE PETERS MICHAEL ANTONY KUBA SHELLEY MERRILYN GOLLAN MARYANNE FIORE MIA LEE FARINOSI TINA ELIZABETH D'CASTRO JULIETTE CHLOE VIRGINIE WOOD DEAN DAVID HOLM GRAHAM IAN ROBERT MICHEL REGNARD DANNIELLE DORISSE ELIZABETH BECKWITH NIGEL KENNETH GILES MARC DREXEL ROBYN LESLEY DREXEL NEIL ALEXANDER GRANT
Catchwords:	Costs Trial of liability Plaintiffs not consolidated before trial Plaintiffs present common case at trial Plaintiffs successful against some defendants Whether several liability to successful defendants for costs specific to individual plaintiffs Whether plaintiffs have one set of costs against unsuccessful defendants Whether apportionment of costs between plaintiffs with one set of costs Whether apportionment after assessment of damages
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GOVE -v- BLACK & ORS [2006] WASC 298 (S2) CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 6-9 & 13-21 NOVEMBER 2006, 14 FEBRUARY, 1 MARCH & 7 JUNE 2007 DELIVERED : 21 DECEMBER 2006 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 6 JULY 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2375 of 1997 BETWEEN : SHARON LEE GOVE

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD ASH BLACK

First Defendant

ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)

Second Defendant

THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)

Third Defendant

CITY OF FREMANTLE

Fourth Defendant

DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)

Fifth Defendant

HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)

Sixth Defendant

(Page 2)

FILE NO/S : CIV 2370 of 1997 BETWEEN : BARNABY PIERRE COLIN WOOD

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD ASH BLACK

First Defendant

ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)

Second Defendant

THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)

Third Defendant

CITY OF FREMANTLE

Fourth Defendant

DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)

Fifth Defendant

HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)

Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2371 of 1997 BETWEEN : PAUL CHARLES BLACKMAN

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD ASH BLACK

First Defendant

ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)

Second Defendant

THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)

Third Defendant

(Page 3)

CITY OF FREMANTLE

Fourth Defendant

DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)

Fifth Defendant

HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)

Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2373 of 1997 BETWEEN : KYLE THEODORE PETERS

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD ASH BLACK

First Defendant

ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007…

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 Gove v Black

Details

AGLC: Gove v Black [2006] WASC 298 (S2)
Case: [2006] WASC 298 (S2)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gove v Black, the Supreme Court of Western Australia addressed the complex issue of costs in a multi-party litigation context. The court considered the proper allocation of costs among plaintiffs and defendants in a series of related actions where liability had been established against some defendants but not others. Templeman J addressed several key issues, including whether plaintiffs should be jointly and severally liable for costs, how costs should be apportioned among plaintiffs, and whether costs should be assessed before or after the damages are determined. The court concluded that plaintiffs should be jointly and severally liable for common costs but individually liable for costs specific to individual actions. It also determined that costs should be apportioned among plaintiffs based on the amounts of their respective claims at the trial's commencement. The court further ruled that costs should be assessed before damages are determined, to avoid undue delay. The detailed order provided a structured approach for the taxation of costs, ensuring that each party's financial responsibility was clearly defined and that the potential for duplication or unfairness in cost allocation was minimized.

Orders