HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA LTD [2011] WASCA 234 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 234 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:79/2010 | 17 & 18 AUGUST 2011 & 9 MARCH 2012 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ PULLIN JA MURPHY JA | 1/11/11 | |
| 24/04/12 | |||
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the trial up until and including 10 November 2008 The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the trial after 10 November 2008 on an indemnity basis No order as to costs of the appeal as between the appellant and the first respondent The second respondent to have its costs of the trial and the appeal over and above the costs incurred by the first respondent The $1.5 million previously paid by the appellant to be deducted from the respondents' entitlement to costs There be a set off between the appellant and the respondents with the balance to be paid | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA LTD [2011] WASCA 234 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- PULLIN JA
MURPHY JA
DECISION : 24 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 79 of 2010 BETWEEN : BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES as Trustee for the Kingstream Steel Creditors' Trust
- Appellant
AND
ST BARBARA LTD
First Respondent
ZYGOT LTD
Second Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : KENNETH MARTIN…
Continue reading Hughes v St Barbara Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hughes v St Barbara Ltd [2011] WASCA 234 (S)
- Case
- [2011] WASCA 234 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hughes v St Barbara Ltd involved a dispute between the appellant, Hughes, and the respondents, St Barbara Ltd and another party, regarding liability and provisional assessment of damages. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the interpretation of contractual obligations and the assessment of damages resulting from a mining operation. The court was tasked with determining the liability of the respondents and the provisional assessment of damages awarded to the appellant.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included the interpretation of contractual terms, the assessment of damages, and the appropriate costs order in light of the outcomes of both the trial and the appeal. A significant aspect of the case was the presence of two Calderbank letters, which are offers made by parties during litigation, and the absence of any offers made during the appeal proceedings. The court needed to assess how these factors should influence the costs order.
The court held that while the appeal on liability was successful, the appeal against the provisional assessment of damages failed. The court considered the two Calderbank letters and the absence of offers during the appeal. It concluded that the costs of the trial should be apportioned between the parties, with Hughes to pay the costs of the trial up until 10 November 2008, and St Barbara Ltd to pay the costs from that date on an indemnity basis. The court also ruled that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal between Hughes and St Barbara Ltd. The second respondent was to bear its own costs of the trial and the appeal, over and above those of St Barbara Ltd. The $1.5 million previously paid by Hughes was to be deducted from the respondents' entitlement to costs, with a set-off to determine the balance to be paid.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included the interpretation of contractual terms, the assessment of damages, and the appropriate costs order in light of the outcomes of both the trial and the appeal. A significant aspect of the case was the presence of two Calderbank letters, which are offers made by parties during litigation, and the absence of any offers made during the appeal proceedings. The court needed to assess how these factors should influence the costs order.
The court held that while the appeal on liability was successful, the appeal against the provisional assessment of damages failed. The court considered the two Calderbank letters and the absence of offers during the appeal. It concluded that the costs of the trial should be apportioned between the parties, with Hughes to pay the costs of the trial up until 10 November 2008, and St Barbara Ltd to pay the costs from that date on an indemnity basis. The court also ruled that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal between Hughes and St Barbara Ltd. The second respondent was to bear its own costs of the trial and the appeal, over and above those of St Barbara Ltd. The $1.5 million previously paid by Hughes was to be deducted from the respondents' entitlement to costs, with a set-off to determine the balance to be paid.
Orders
Orders of the court
The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the trial up until and including 10 November 2008
The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the trial after 10 November 2008 on an indemnity basis
No order as to costs of the appeal as between the appellant and the first respondent
The second respondent to have its costs of the trial and the appeal over and above the costs incurred by the first respondent
The $1.5 million previously paid by the appellant to be deducted from the respondents' entitlement to costs
There be a set off between the appellant and the respondents with the balance to be paid
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.