Grygiel v Baine (No 2)
Case
•
[2005] NSWCA 434
•9 December 2005
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Grygiel v Baine (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 434
[2005] NSWCA 434
9 December 2005
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Grygiel v Baine (No 2)* concerned a motion brought by Mr Grygiel seeking to vary the costs orders made by the Court on 29 June 2005. Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea were the respondents to this motion. The dispute arose from the court's previous judgment, where an appeal was allowed, a prior judgment was set aside, and costs orders were made. Mr Grygiel sought to alter these costs orders, arguing that the court had failed to invite submissions on costs and that the original costs orders were not sufficiently clear.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs orders made on 29 June 2005 should be varied under the slip rule. This involved determining if the court had inadvertently failed to address costs or if the existing orders were ambiguous. A secondary issue was whether Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea were entitled to certificates under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in relation to the costs orders made against Mr Grygiel.
The court dismissed Mr Grygiel's motion to vary the costs orders, finding that the original orders were intended to substitute the costs order made by the Master and that no clarification was necessary. The court reasoned that Mr Grygiel's application was essentially an attempt to reopen the judgment of 29 June 2005, which was not permissible under the principles governing reconsideration of judgments before the entry of orders. The court also noted the failure of Mr Grygiel's counsel to make proper submissions on costs at the original hearing, referencing prior authorities that resist such applications. Regarding the Suitors’ Fund Act, the court granted certificates to Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea for both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Master, finding that the Tribunal in question was a "court" for the purposes of the Act and that the proceedings were by way of an appeal.
Consequently, Mr Grygiel's motion was dismissed with costs. Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea were granted certificates under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in relation to the costs orders made against Mr Grygiel.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs orders made on 29 June 2005 should be varied under the slip rule. This involved determining if the court had inadvertently failed to address costs or if the existing orders were ambiguous. A secondary issue was whether Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea were entitled to certificates under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in relation to the costs orders made against Mr Grygiel.
The court dismissed Mr Grygiel's motion to vary the costs orders, finding that the original orders were intended to substitute the costs order made by the Master and that no clarification was necessary. The court reasoned that Mr Grygiel's application was essentially an attempt to reopen the judgment of 29 June 2005, which was not permissible under the principles governing reconsideration of judgments before the entry of orders. The court also noted the failure of Mr Grygiel's counsel to make proper submissions on costs at the original hearing, referencing prior authorities that resist such applications. Regarding the Suitors’ Fund Act, the court granted certificates to Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea for both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Master, finding that the Tribunal in question was a "court" for the purposes of the Act and that the proceedings were by way of an appeal.
Consequently, Mr Grygiel's motion was dismissed with costs. Mr Baine and Carroll & O’Dea were granted certificates under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in relation to the costs orders made against Mr Grygiel.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Res Judicata
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Grygiel v Baine (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 434
Most Recent Citation
Astram Financial Services Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1166
Cases Citing This Decision
23
Ritson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force
[2019] NSWCA 106
Lordianto v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
[2018] NSWCA 199
City of Canada Bay Council v Bonaccorso Pty Ltd (No 3)
[2008] NSWCA 57
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
3
Grygiel v Baine
[2005] NSWCA 218
Krslovic Homes v Sparkes
[2004] NSWSC 374
El Deeb v Magistrates Court of South Australia
[1999] SASC 113