KOPILOVIC & ORS -v- GATLEY & ORS [2005] WASC 62 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 62 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1593/2003	Heard:	15-17 MARCH 2004
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	22/04/05
Supplementary Delivered:	8/02/06
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiffs jointly and severally to pay 80 per cent of the defendants' costs to be taxed Liberty to apply reserved to certain plaintiffs to seek directions as to whether, and if so in what manner, they may seek an indemnity or contribution towards their liability for costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PATRICIA LILANA KOPILOVIC JOHN GIARDINA DAMIEN CIRANNA JOHN ANTONACCI MARCIA FRAGIADAKIS VIVIAN SIMPSON AARON-LEE WILDE DEE JAMES DEBRA OFFER ANNE FARRAWELL NATHAN MAJOR HELEN MAJOR RAYMOND BUCKLEY SNEDDON CARMELO FRANCESCO RACCUIA DEREK FRANCIS GATLEY MARGARET ANN LONSDALE VINCENT RAYMOND BAIN JEFFREY ROBERT ELWORTHY CAROL KAY KIMMINS KATHRYN FRANCES WIGGINS TONY JOSEPH TILENNI ROBERT HENRY COURTS ROBERT JOHN STEELE MALCOLM LENNARD BATTY VINCENT SILVIO IOPPOLO EAMON MICHAEL McGRATH PETER SPENCER SMITH ORYST TKACZ DALLAS LESLIE WILLIAMS LEE GARTH WILTON DANCESPORT AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 085 929 835)
Catchwords:	Costs Multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants Costs of particular issues Defendants generally successful Plaintiffs successful to minor extent on limited issues Overall apportionment of costs Claim by some plaintiffs to be absolved from liability for costs Claim by some plaintiffs for indemnity or contribution from other plaintiffs for liability for costs Claims for indemnity or contribution generally
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) (1969) 121 CLR 342 Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 282 Kopilovic & Ors v Gatley & Ors [2005] WASC 62 Re Mathews [1905] 2 Ch 460 Re Wright [1895] 2 Ch 747 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : KOPILOVIC & ORS -v- GATLEY & ORS [2005] WASC 62 (S) CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 15-17 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 22 APRIL 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 8 FEBRUARY 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 1593 of 2003 MATTER : DANCESPORT AUSTRALIA LTD
(ACN 085 929 835) BETWEEN : PATRICIA LILANA KOPILOVIC

First Plaintiff

JOHN GIARDINA

Second Plaintiff

DAMIEN CIRANNA

Third Plaintiff

JOHN ANTONACCI

Fourth Plaintiff

MARCIA FRAGIADAKIS

Fifth Plaintiff

VIVIAN SIMPSON

Sixth Plaintiff

AARON-LEE WILDE

Seventh Plaintiff

(Page 2)

DEE JAMES

Eighth Plaintiff

DEBRA OFFER

Ninth Plaintiff

ANNE FARRAWELL

Tenth Plaintiff

NATHAN MAJOR

Eleventh Plaintiff

HELEN MAJOR

Twelfth Plaintiff

RAYMOND BUCKLEY SNEDDON

Thirteenth Plaintiff

CARMELO FRANCESCO RACCUIA

Fourteenth Plaintiff

AND

DEREK FRANCIS GATLEY

First Defendant

MARGARET ANN LONSDALE

Second Defendant

VINCENT RAYMOND BAIN

Third Defendant

JEFFREY ROBERT ELWORTHY

Fourth Defendant

CAROL KAY KIMMINS

Fifth Defendant

KATHRYN FRANCES WIGGINS

Sixth Defendant

(Page 3)

TONY JOSEPH TILENNI

Seventh Defendant

ROBERT HENRY COURTS

Eighth Defendant

ROBERT JOHN STEELE

Ninth Defendant

MALCOLM LENNARD BATTY

Tenth Defendant

VINCENT SILVIO IOPPOLO

Eleventh Defendant

EAMON MICHAEL McGRATH

Twelfth Defendant

PETER SPENCER SMITH

Thirteenth Defendant

ORYST TKACZ

Fourteenth Defendant

DALLAS LESLIE WILLIAMS

Fifteenth Defendant

LEE GARTH WILTON

Sixteenth Defendant

DANCESPORT AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 085…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kopilovic v Gatley

Details

AGLC: Kopilovic v Gatley [2005] WASC 62 (S)
Case: [2005] WASC 62 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kopilovic v Gatley involved a complex dispute among multiple plaintiffs and defendants concerning the validity of the constitution of Dancesport Australia Ltd. The primary legal issue was whether the defendants, who were the directors and officers of the company, were successful in their defense of the April 2000 constitution of the company. The court found that while the defendants were generally successful, the plaintiffs achieved some limited success on specific issues, such as the ineffectiveness of certain resolutions and amendments to the company's constitution. The court reasoned that, despite the plaintiffs' overall failure, their success on these issues warranted a partial recovery of costs. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiffs should pay 80% of the defendants' costs, reflecting the minor success achieved by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court granted certain plaintiffs the liberty to apply for directions on seeking indemnity or contribution from other plaintiffs for their liability for costs.

Orders