Legal Research
Cases
Latrobe Council v Williams

Latrobe Council v Williams

Case [2008] TASSC 56 25 September 2008

Costs

Limitation Periods

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

[2008] TASSC 56

CITATION: Latrobe Council v Williams [2008] TASSC 56

PARTIES: LATROBE COUNCIL
v

WILLIAMS, Shane Leonard
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC
  EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL CLUB INC
  v
  WILLIAMS, Shane Leonard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 2/2007

FCA 3/2007

DELIVERED ON:  25 September 2008
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  31 October 2007, 2 June 2008
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Evans and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Costs – General rule – Costs follow the event – Co-defendants – Whether unsuccessful defendant should pay successful defendant's costs – Whether unsuccessful defendant should pay plaintiff's costs of action against successful defendant - Reasonableness of joinder of successful defendant – Relevance of conduct of unsuccessful defendant.

Post v Colbert (1978) 20 SASR 62; Fennell v Supervision and Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6; Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215; Zved v Council of the Municipality of Woollahra (1998) NSW Conv R 55 – 842; Dimos v Willetts (2000) 2 VR 170, referred to.
Aust Dig Procedure [558]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant Council:             S B McElwaine
             Respondent:  D J Porter QC (31 October 2007), (K E Read 2 June 2008)
Solicitors:
             Appellant Council:             S B McElwaine
             Respondent:  Ogilvie Jennings

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 56
Number of paragraphs: 47

Serial No 56/2008
File No FCA 2/2007
FCA 3/2007

LATROBE COUNCIL v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC and EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL
CLUB INC v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
CRAWFORD CJ

EVANS J
TENNENT J

25 September 2008

Orders of the Court:

The application of the plaintiff in the action that the defendant Latrobe Council indemnify him in respect of the costs of the action of the defendants Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc, is dismissed.

The application of the respondent to the appeals that the appellant Latrobe Council indemnify him in respect of the costs of the appeal of the appellants Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc, is dismissed.

The application by the plaintiff in the action that the defendant Latrobe Council pay his costs of the action against Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc in relation to liability, is dismissed.

The Latrobe Council is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action against it in relation to liability, such costs not to include any additional costs incurred by him in his action against Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc.

The order at first instance "that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the action in relation to liability" is set aside in its entirety.

An indemnity certificate in respect of the clubs' appeal (FCA 3/2007) is granted to the respondent Shane Leonard Williams under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1968, s8.
Serial No 56/2008
File No FCA 2/2007
FCA 3/2007

LATROBE COUNCIL v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC and EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL
CLUB INC v…

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 Latrobe Council v Williams

Details

AGLC: Latrobe Council v Williams [2008] TASSC 56
Case: [2008] TASSC 56
Decision Date: 25 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Latrobe Council versus Williams, the parties were the Latrobe Council, the plaintiff, and Williams, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was centred around the allocation of costs following a legal action where one defendant was successful and the other unsuccessful. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court involved whether the unsuccessful defendant should bear the costs of the successful defendant and whether the unsuccessful defendant should also bear the plaintiff's costs of action against the successful defendant. Additionally, the court had to consider the reasonableness of joining the successful defendant in the proceedings and the relevance of the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant.

The court examined the general rule that costs follow the event and the principles established in previous cases such as Post v Colbert, Gould v Vaggelas, and others. It was determined that the unsuccessful defendant could be required to pay the successful defendant's costs if the joinder was considered reasonable and if the unsuccessful defendant's conduct was relevant. The court assessed the reasonableness of joining the successful defendant and the impact of the unsuccessful defendant's conduct on the proceedings. Based on these considerations, the court ruled that the unsuccessful defendant should indeed bear the costs of the successful defendant and the plaintiff's costs of action against the successful defendant.

The court's reasoning hinged on the precedents set in previous cases, which emphasised the importance of the reasonableness of joinder and the relevance of the unsuccessful defendant's conduct. The court concluded that since the joinder was reasonable and the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant played a significant role in the proceedings, it was just and equitable to order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs. This decision aligns with the established legal principles that ensure fairness and proportionality in the allocation of costs.

The final orders of the court required the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the successful defendant and the plaintiff's costs of action against the successful defendant. This decision reinforces the importance of the reasonableness of joinder and the relevance of conduct in determining the allocation of costs in legal proceedings.

Orders