GOVE -v- BLACK & ORS [2006] WASC 298 (S)
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASC 298 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2375/1997 | 6-9 & 13-21 NOVEMBER 2006, 14 FEBRUARY & 1 MARCH 2007 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J | 20/12/06 | |
| 22/03/07 | |||
| 48 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | See draft order appended to these reasons | ||
| 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: | Torts Costs Whether Sanderson or Bullock orders Extent to which any conduct of unsuccessful defendants shows it was reasonable to join successful defendants Effect of alleging independent causes of action Torts Negligence Plaintiff sues six defendants Two defendants held liable Contribution between defendants Comparison of culpability Costs Whether indemnity costs flow from Calderbank offers Effect of acceptance being an abandonment instead of a compromise Lack of evidence on how declining an offer was unreasonable Determining costs in quasirepresentative proceedings |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Altamura v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1974] VR 33 Atkins v Purslowe [1966] WAR 46 Bankamerica Finance Ltd v Nock [1988] AC 1002 Bullock v The London General Omnibus Company [1907] 1 KB 264 Christofidellis v Zdrilic [2000] FCA 679 Den Hoedt v Barwick [2006] WASCA 196 Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532 Duncan & Weller Pty Ltd v Mendelson [1989] VR 386 Fennell v Supervision & Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6 Fimiston Mining NL v Western Reefs Ltd (1996) 14 WAR 387 Grbavac v Hart [1997] 1 VR 154 Johnsons Tyne Foundry Pty Ltd v Maffra Corporation (1948) 77 CLR 544 Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 Kingswood Golf Club Ltd v Smith [2005] VSCA 224 Mayer v Harte [1960] 1 WLR 770 NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 11) (2001) 109 FCR 77 Norwest Refrigeration Services Pty Ltd v Bain Dawes (WA) Pty Ltd (1984) 157 CLR 149 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529 Sanko Steamship Company Ltd v Sumitomo Australia Ltd, unreported; Fed C of A (Sheppard J); 7 February 1996 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
DECISION : 23 MARCH 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2375 of 1997 BETWEEN : SHARON LEE GOVE
- Plaintiff
Continue reading Gove v Black
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Gove v Black [2006] WASC 298 (S)
- Case
- [2006] WASC 298 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Gove v Black involved a plaintiff who brought a lawsuit against six defendants, seeking damages for negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' conduct independently caused harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which needed to determine several legal issues. The court was required to decide whether the costs incurred in the case should be determined under the Sanderson or Bullock orders, considering the extent to which the unsuccessful defendants' conduct indicated it was reasonable to join the successful ones. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of the plaintiff's allegation of independent causes of action on the apportionment of liability. Another key issue was whether indemnity costs should flow from Calderbank offers, especially when the acceptance of such an offer was deemed an abandonment rather than a compromise. The court also needed to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to show that declining an offer was unreasonable. Finally, the court needed to determine the costs in this quasi-representative proceeding.
The court reasoned that the unsuccessful defendants' conduct did not necessarily indicate it was unreasonable to join them in the proceedings. The plaintiff's allegation of independent causes of action did not absolve the court from considering the overall liability of all defendants. Regarding indemnity costs, the court held that the acceptance of a Calderbank offer was not a compromise but an abandonment, which meant that indemnity costs should not apply. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that declining an offer was unreasonable. In determining the costs of the quasi-representative proceeding, the court considered the nature of the litigation and the public interest involved, ultimately deciding on the appropriate order for costs.
The court's decision concluded that the costs should be determined under the Sanderson order, which provides for indemnity costs in certain circumstances. The court held that the unsuccessful defendants were liable for the costs of the successful defendants. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs for the Calderbank offers, as the acceptance of the offer was an abandonment, not a compromise. The court ordered that the unsuccessful defendants pay the costs of the successful defendants and that the plaintiff be awarded indemnity costs for the Calderbank offers. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs for declining the Calderbank offers, as there was insufficient evidence to show that declining the offers was unreasonable.
The court reasoned that the unsuccessful defendants' conduct did not necessarily indicate it was unreasonable to join them in the proceedings. The plaintiff's allegation of independent causes of action did not absolve the court from considering the overall liability of all defendants. Regarding indemnity costs, the court held that the acceptance of a Calderbank offer was not a compromise but an abandonment, which meant that indemnity costs should not apply. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that declining an offer was unreasonable. In determining the costs of the quasi-representative proceeding, the court considered the nature of the litigation and the public interest involved, ultimately deciding on the appropriate order for costs.
The court's decision concluded that the costs should be determined under the Sanderson order, which provides for indemnity costs in certain circumstances. The court held that the unsuccessful defendants were liable for the costs of the successful defendants. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs for the Calderbank offers, as the acceptance of the offer was an abandonment, not a compromise. The court ordered that the unsuccessful defendants pay the costs of the successful defendants and that the plaintiff be awarded indemnity costs for the Calderbank offers. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs for declining the Calderbank offers, as there was insufficient evidence to show that declining the offers was unreasonable.
Orders
Orders of the court
See draft order appended to these reasons
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.