Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (No. 5)

[2013] VSC 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 09222

LINDA HUDSPETH	Plaintiff
v
SCHOLASTIC CLEANING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 DECEMBER 2012
DATE OF RULING:	8 FEBRUARY 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HUDSPETH v SCHOLASTIC CLEANING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS (No. 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 25

---

COSTS – liability of a non party for costs – procedural orders connecting the worker’s jury action and the recovery action - whether successful defendant in a worker’s action entitled to the costs of defending the worker’s action against the Authority as a non-party to it – whether successful defendant entitled to an order for costs in a recovery action that include the common costs that were incurred in the worker’s proceeding - discretionary considerations.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	No appearance	Clark, Toop & Taylor
For the First Defendant	No appearance	Minter Ellison
For the Second Defendant	Mr D Masel SC	Wotton & Kearney Lawyers
For the Victorian WorkCover Authority	Mr J Simpson with Ms R Boyce	Russell Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

1. On 12 December 2012 following a trial that commenced on 13 November 2012 and the verdict of a jury of six, I entered judgment for the defendants in this proceeding.

1. The second defendant sought an order for costs against the plaintiff and against a non-party, the Victorian WorkCover Authority. I previously determined the second defendant’s application for costs from the plaintiff. Its application for an order against the Authority arose out of the connection between this proceeding and a recovery action by the Authority under s 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 seeking an indemnity from the second defendant[1] for payments made by it under the Act to the plaintiff.

   [1]In the recovery proceeding it is the first defendant.

1. This application was heard and determined in conjunction with an application that the Authority pay the second defendant costs in that proceeding including as common costs, costs incurred in this proceeding.

1. Both applications will be refused for the reasons I have given in the recovery proceeding.[2] I will hear counsel on the question of the costs of the application.

   [2]Victorian WorkCover Authority v Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation For Archdiocese Of Melbourne & Anor [2013] VSC 26.

---