Harding v Essey

Case [2005] WASCA 30 (S)


HARDING & ANOR -v- ESSEY & ANOR [2005] WASCA 30 (S)



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 30 (S)
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:132/200217 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:STEYTLER J
MCLURE J
PULLIN J
4/03/05
30/06/05
13Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Orders as to costs of trial and appeal
B
PDF Version
Parties:MARLENE ANNE HARDING
PINEGATE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
FRED JOSEPH ESSEY
ALL-FECT DISTRIBUTORS LTD

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure
Costs
One plaintiff succeeds entirely at trial and on appeal
One plaintiff fails entirely
The defendants succeed entirely on the counterclaim on appeal
No new point of principle

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A, O 66 r 2(b), (c)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32

Case References:

Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani [1919] 2 KB 567
Godden v Alford [1960] WAR 235
Harding & Anor v Essey & Anor [2005] WASCA 30
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420
Permanent Building Society v Wheeler (No 2) (1993) 10 WAR 569
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1993] 1 All ER 232
Sloane v McDonald & Sutherland, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980012; 22 January 1998

Ottway v Jones [1955] 2 All ER 585

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HARDING & ANOR -v- ESSEY & ANOR [2005] WASCA 30 (S) CORAM : STEYTLER J
    MCLURE J
    PULLIN J
HEARD : 17 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 4 MARCH 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 30 JUNE 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 132 of 2002 BETWEEN : MARLENE ANNE HARDING
    First Appellant (First Defendant)

    PINEGATE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
    Second Appellant (Second Defendant)

    AND

    FRED JOSEPH ESSEY
    First Respondent (First Plaintiff)

    ALL-FECT DISTRIBUTORS LTD
    Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff)




(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HASLUCK J

Citation : ESSEY & ANOR -v- HARDING & ANOR [2002] WASC 209

File No : CIV 1190 of 1998





Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - One plaintiff succeeds entirely at trial and on appeal - One plaintiff fails entirely - The defendants succeed entirely on the counterclaim on appeal - No new point of principle




Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A, O 66 r 2(b), (c)


Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32


Result:

Orders as to costs of trial and appeal




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    First Appellant (First Defendant) : Dr J T Schoombee
    Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Dr J T Schoombee
    First Respondent (First Plaintiff) : Mr K L Christensen
    Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff) : Mr K L Christensen


Solicitors:

    First Appellant (First Defendant) : Phillips Fox
    Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Phillips Fox
    First Respondent (First Plaintiff) : Christensen Vaughan
    Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff) : Christensen Vaughan

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani [1919] 2 KB 567
Godden v Alford [1960] WAR 235

Continue reading Harding v Essey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harding v Essey [2005] WASCA 30 (S)
Case
[2005] WASCA 30 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was against a decision which had ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the trial and appeal. The plaintiffs were two brothers who had sued the defendants, their sister and her husband, for a declaration that they were the sole beneficial owners of a property in Bondi. The defendants counterclaimed, claiming that the plaintiffs held the property on trust for themselves and the sister. The trial judge found in favour of the defendants on both the claim and counterclaim, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the trial and appeal. One of the plaintiffs appealed, contending that the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering him to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal. The other plaintiff did not appeal.

The issue before the court was whether the trial judge's order as to costs of the appeal was correct. The court noted that the plaintiff who appealed had succeeded entirely on the trial and appeal, and that the other plaintiff had failed entirely. The defendants had succeeded entirely on the counterclaim on appeal. The court noted that there was no new point of principle.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal. The court noted that the plaintiff who appealed had succeeded entirely on the appeal, and that there was no new point of principle. The court noted that the other plaintiff had failed entirely, and that the defendants had succeeded entirely on the counterclaim on appeal. The court found that the order as to costs of the appeal was correct.

The court dismissed the appeal and made orders as to costs of the trial and appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders as to costs of trial and 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.