Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL) appealed against the primary judge's interpretation of the trial judge's costs orders in Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (No 11) [2011] WASC 74. The primary judge found that HPPL was to pay Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd's (WPPL) costs of the claim and counterclaim, subject to an order for WPPL to pay HPPL's costs of a particular claim on which WPPL failed. The specific dispute was whether the primary judge was correct to hold that certain costs were payable under the general order or the specific order. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether an objective or subjective test should be applied to ascertain the purpose for which evidence was adduced, and whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the trial judge held that a claim for damages in lieu of specific performance was open to be brought and pursued despite it not being claimed in the writ or pleading.

The court found that the primary judge's approach to interpreting the trial judge's costs orders was correct. The court held that the primary judge applied the correct legal principles in determining the allocation of costs between the parties. The court held that an objective test should be applied to ascertain the purpose for which evidence was adduced. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge did not err in concluding that the trial judge held that a claim for damages in lieu of specific performance was open to be brought and pursued, even though it was not claimed in the writ or pleading.

The appeal was dismissed. The primary judge's interpretation of the trial judge's costs orders was affirmed. The court held that the primary judge applied the correct legal principles and that an objective test should be applied to ascertain the purpose for which evidence was adduced. The court also held that the primary judge did not err in concluding that the trial judge held that a claim for damages in lieu of specific performance was open to be brought and pursued, even though it was not claimed in the writ or pleading.