Legal Research
Cases
Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor

Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor

Link copied

Case Copied 22 December 2000 18 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Limited & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1101

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13117/99

HEARING DATE(S): 17/07/2000, 18/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 December 2000

PARTIES :

Peter Grogan trading as P Grogan & Co v Thiess Contractors Pty Limited & Anor

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : J Sexton SC - Plaintiff/Applicant
DF Rofe QC/MJ Lawler - Defendants/Respondents

SOLICITORS: Gadens Lawyers - Plaintiff/Applicant
Crisp & Associates - Defendants/Respondents

CATCHWORDS: Interest on costs - proceedings in Common Law Division - whether interest not payable unless Court otherwise orders.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970, s 95(3), (4)

CASES CITED: Fischer v David Syme & Co Limited (1989) 18 NSWLR 606
Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1 at 14
McWilliams Wines v Liaweena (1993) 32 NSWLR 190
The Minister v Carson (1994) 35 NSWLR 342
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Quin (1989) 186 CLR 622
Osborne v Kelly & Klimenko [1999] SASC 486
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589

DECISION: See para 42.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 22 December 2000
13117/99 - Peter Grogan Trading as Peter Grogan & Co v Thiess Contractors Proprietary Limited & Anor
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: By his summons the plaintiff seeks an order under s 95 Supreme Court Act or otherwise ordering the defendants to pay interests on assessed costs and other costs incurred by him in certain proceedings in the Common Law Division. The plaintiff sued the defendants for the unlawful termination of a contract in 1989. The proceedings commenced on 5 February 1992 in the Commercial List. The question of liability was referred to a Referee. The Referee reported, and after a contested hearing the Court remitted two further matters for consideration. The Referee reported a second time and the Court made orders adopting the two reports concerning liability. The question of damages was referred to the Referee and a timetable set. The reference continued on and off for twenty-eight days and the Referee published a report. After a further contested hearing the Court adopted the report but remitted two matters for consideration by the Referee. The Referee published a second report. After a further contested hearing the Court determined the matter on 12 April 1995 and made orders as to damages, interests and costs. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $825,295 plus costs was entered on 20 April 1995. The defendants appealed and moved for a stay of execution on the judgment, which was granted upon the defendants’ securing a sum of money by bank guarantee. The appeal was heard on 11 December 1995 and dismissed on 24 July 1996.
2 Offers and counter-offers were made about quantum of costs. On 21 January 1997 the defendants paid $72,568 in respect of undisputed costs and on 25 March 1998 they paid a further $450,000 on account. The plaintiff filed an application for the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2000] NSWSC 1101
Decision Date: 22 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor involves a legal dispute between Grogan, the plaintiff, and Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd and another defendant. The nature of the dispute revolves around the payment of interest on costs incurred during legal proceedings in the Common Law Division. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether interest on costs was payable unless the court specifically ordered otherwise.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions concerning interest on costs in proceedings in the Common Law Division. The court had to determine whether interest on costs was automatically payable or required a specific court order. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the statutory language and whether any exceptions or conditions applied to the payment of interest on costs.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. The court found that the language of the statute implied that interest on costs was not automatically payable but required a specific order from the court. The court concluded that unless the court expressly ordered the payment of interest, it was not payable. The court's interpretation was based on a careful reading of the statutory language and the context in which it was used. The court's decision provided clarity on the issue and ensured that the statutory provisions were applied as intended by the legislature.

The final orders of the court were that interest on costs in proceedings in the Common Law Division was not payable unless the court otherwise ordered. This decision provided a clear guideline for future cases and helped to ensure that the statutory provisions were applied consistently. The outcome of the case is significant for legal practitioners and parties involved in similar disputes, as it clarifies the requirements for the payment of interest on costs in the Common Law Division.

Orders