Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd

In the case of Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd, the applicant sought leave to appeal costs orders made in two separate proceedings brought under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The two proceedings were heard together, and the applicant challenged the decision of the primary judge who determined that the proceedings had not become fused for the purpose of awarding costs. The court of appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge's decision was correct and, if not, whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal.

The court considered whether the two proceedings had become fused for the purpose of awarding costs. The court noted that the two proceedings were related, as they both involved the same parties and related to the same incident. However, the court held that the proceedings had not become fused as they involved different causes of action and different factual issues. The court also noted that the primary judge had not erred in his determination that the proceedings had not become fused.

The court held that the primary judge's determination that the proceedings had not become fused was correct, and that the applicant was not entitled to have the costs of the two proceedings assessed on a fused basis. The court also held that the applicant was not entitled to costs for the appeal to the court of appeal, as the appeal did not result in a substantial change in the applicant's favour.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal the costs orders, but did not set aside the costs orders made by the primary judge. The court held that the primary judge's determination that the proceedings had not become fused was correct, and that the applicant was not entitled to have the costs of the two proceedings assessed on a fused basis. The court also held that the applicant was not entitled to costs for the appeal to the court of appeal, as the appeal did not result in a substantial change in the applicant's favour.