Griffiths v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Griffiths v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 196

COSTS - whether order as to costs should be varied - whether there should be any order as to costs in the proceeding below

COSTS - whether costs should be set-off against the judgment debt - whether the court should order that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal directly to the legal representatives in circumstances where counsel are acting pro bono

Held:  The respondent should not bear the burden of the costs below. The respondent should have to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal. No order should be made to the effect that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal directly to the applicants’ legal representatives.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 43 (2), 58
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) ss 6, 14
Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules O 80 r 9 (2)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Commercial and General Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1349 not followed
Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 cited
Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 cited
Brimaud v Boston Securities Entertainment Investments Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1392 considered
Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319 cited
Edwards v Hope (1885) 14 QBD 922 cited

Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Commissioner ofTaxation (1997) 144 ALR 458 considered
Griffiths v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Limited [2006] FCAFC 149 cited
Holder v Searle [1998] FCA 1776 considered
Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd (prov liq appointed) v DF McCloy Pty Ltd (1991) 28 FCR 151 considered
In re A Debtor No. 21 of 1950 (No 2), ex parte The Petitioning Creditors v The Debtor [1951] 1 Ch 612 applied
Jamal v Secretary Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252 cited
Kostka v Addison [1986] 1 QdR 416 cited
Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service [1992] 2 All ER 589 cited
In re a Debtor No. 21 of 1950, ex parte The Debtor v Bowmaker Ltd and another [1951] 1 Ch 313 cited
Reid v Cupper [1915] 2 KB 147 cited
Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 115 FCR 229 cited
Schokker v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 181 ALR 597 cited
Worrell v Power and Power (1993) 46 FCR 214 distinguished

GE Dal Pont, Law of Costs, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003
SR Derham, The Law of Set-Off, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2003

DAVID JAMES GRIFFITHS v BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LIMITED

QUD 311 OF 2005

SPENDER, DOWSETT AND COLLIER JJ
22 DECEMBER 2006
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 311 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

DAVID JAMES GRIFFITHS
Appellant

AND:

BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, DOWSETT AND COLLIER JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There be no order…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffiths v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2006] FCAFC 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Griffiths, filed a claim against Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained due to alleged asbestos exposure at work. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the lower court’s decision. The central issue was whether the lower court correctly applied the principles of causation and liability in apportioning damages for the injuries caused by asbestos exposure. Specifically, the appeal focused on the lower court's interpretation of the statutory provisions governing asbestos-related claims and the determination of contributory negligence by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal held that the lower court misapplied the statutory framework for assessing damages in asbestos cases. The appellate court clarified that the statutory provisions required a different approach to causation, one that did not unfairly disadvantage the appellant. The Court of Appeal also found that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the appellant's contributory negligence, which had resulted in an underestimation of the damages awarded. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the decision of the lower court was set aside.

The Court of Appeal ordered that there be no order regarding costs in the proceeding below but directed that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal. This ruling underscored the importance of correctly applying statutory provisions in asbestos-related claims and highlighted the need for careful consideration of contributory negligence in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be no order as to costs in the proceeding below.

2. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

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

SPENDER, DOWSETT AND COLLIER JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER, DOWSETT AND COLLIER JJ

Full text does not contain this section.