IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King and Taylor Pty Ltd
[2002] VSC 412
•19 September 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 2068 of 2001
| IGA DISTRIBUTION PTY LTD | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| KING & TAYLOR PTY LTD | First Defendant |
| DELAHEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD | Second Defendant |
---
RULING NO. 8
JUDGE: | Nettle J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 19 September 2002 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 19 September 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King & Taylor Pty Ltd and anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 412 | |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr R.M. Garratt QC | Cornwall Stodart |
| For the First Defendant | Mr J.D. Hammond QC | Richard Szental |
| For the Second Defendant | Mr P.J. Hayes with Ms L. Hannon | Efron & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Mr Garratt makes application for costs of the application made by the first defendant to recall Ms Zusman and to add Mr Roger King to the list of first defendant’s witnesses. The application has taken in the order of one-and-a-half hours on the eleventh day of trial; having been made without notice or warning.
Mr Hammond opposes any order for costs and submits that consideration of costs should stand over until the end of the trial so that it may be seen whether or not there was any substance in the allegation sought to be advanced by the tender of the further evidence.
I consider it is appropriate that the plaintiff should have its costs of the application. The application is discrete, and has been significant both in terms of argument and time necessary for disposal, unlike some of the other and usual interlocutory applications which are made in the course of running.
Whether or not the plaintiff succeeds at the end of the day will not determine or inform the view which one takes about the propriety of the course which has been adopted by the first defendant in making application at this stage of the trial or as to whether or not it ought to have been successful in the making of that application.
Accordingly, upon the first defendant’s application this morning there will be an order that it pay the plaintiff’s costs of that application.
-----
0
0
0