Krishell Pty Ltd v Nilant
[2006] WASCA 223 (S)
•27 OCTOBER 2006
KRISHELL PTY LTD -v- NILANT & ORS [2006] WASCA 223 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 223 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:19/2005 | 11 APRIL 2006 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA McLURE JA BUSS JA | 27/10/06 | |
| 31/01/07 | |||
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application to amend costs order dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KRISHELL PTY LTD CHARLES PHILIPPE LOUIS NILANT OREN ZOHAR CHARLES DANIEL GARDNER |
Catchwords: | Costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Monaco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KRISHELL PTY LTD -v- NILANT & ORS [2006] WASCA 223 (S) CORAM : WHEELER JA
- McLURE JA
BUSS JA
DECISION : 1 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 19 of 2005 BETWEEN : KRISHELL PTY LTD
- Appellant
AND
CHARLES PHILIPPE LOUIS NILANT
OREN ZOHAR
First Respondents
CHARLES DANIEL GARDNER
Second Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MASTER NEWNES
Citation : KRISHELL PTY LTD -v- NILANT & ORS [2005] WASC 14
File No : COR 73 of 2004
Catchwords:
Costs - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application to amend costs order dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr P A Kyle
First Respondents : Ms P E Cahill
Second Respondent : Dr J T Schoombee
Solicitors:
Appellant : Kyle & Co
First Respondents : Jackson McDonald
Second Respondent : Bruce Havilah & Associates
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Monaco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522
(Page 4)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The second respondent applies to amend the costs order made by the Court on 27 October 2006. On that day, the Court ordered that the appellant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed. The second respondent seeks to amend the order to allow for the recovery of reserved costs. Counsel for the second respondent did not seek those costs at the time when the order was made. No explanation is provided for the failure.
2 The Court has jurisdiction to correct a judgment or order where an error arises from an accidental slip or omission (O 21 r 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)) and pursuant to the Court's inherent jurisdiction (Monaco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522 at 524).
3 The parties have filed written submissions and agree to this application being determined on the papers. The only reserved costs were in respect of an appearance before Registrar S Boyle to settle the appeal book index to which the second respondent was unwilling to consent. The second respondent was unsuccessful in seeking to include further documents in the appeal book. In response, the second respondent contends that the attendance before the Registrar resulted from the issue of a Notice to Attend on 5 October 2005. Be that as it may, such attendances may be vacated if matters are agreed, thereby reducing litigation costs. On the material put before the Court, I am not persuaded that the second respondent should have the reserved costs. Accordingly, I would order that the application be dismissed and that the second respondent pay the appellant's costs of the application to be taxed.
6