Lowes Park P/L v Headlam, C.B.

[1994] FCA 865

865 9+

JUDGMENT No. ..... -...,,.J ---........

NOT FOR GENgRAL DISTRIBUTIW

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

TASMANIA DISTRICT RE-	)	TG 3001 of 1993
)
M E R A L DIVISIQPI	)

RE : LOWES PARK PTY LTD

BETWEEN:

CHARLES BARRY HEADLAM AS TRUSTEE OF

THE C.B. AND M.J. HEADLAM TRUST

Applicant

AND : LOWES PARK PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND : IAN EDWARD HEADLAM

Second Respondent

AND : JAN EDWARD HEADLAM

Cross-Claimant

AND :

CHARLES BARRY H E A D W

Cross-Respondent

CORAM: Burchett J.	Ay	1
PLACE: Sydney (heard in Hobart) DATE : 18 November 1994

. - W 7

W O N S FOR JU-NT

, .

In this matter I delivered judgment on 30 September 1994, when I ordered that the respondents, within fourteen days, bring in short minutes of orders, and that the applicant file and serve, within a further fourteen days, a document setting out any objections to or variations of the short minutes for which he contended.

2 .

Following the delivery of this judgment, the parties did in fact file contending versions of what they submitted were appropriate orders, and also brief written submissions. No party sought to be heard orally.

The dispute as to the form of the orders is particularly concerned with the costs of a cross-claim filed and served in the proceeding, but not pursued at the hearing. In my opinion, the applicant is entitled to have the result of the cross-claim taken into account in the formulation of the terms of the costs order that should be made.

I now make the following orders:

1.    The application be dismissed.

2.    The cross-claim be dismissed.

3.    Any interlocutory orders be discharged.

4.   The costs of the respondents of and incidental to the

application (except to the extent that these costs may have been mcreased by the bringing of the cross-claim) be paid by Charles Barry Headlam, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement and to include any reserved costs.

5.    The costs of the cross-respondent to the extent that those costs are referable to the institution of the cross-claim be pald by the cross-claimant, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett.

Date: 18 November 1994

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr G. Garde Q.C. with

Mr M. Chambers

Solicltors for the Applicant:

Messrs Shields

Heritage

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr M. O'Farrell with

Mrs C. Ingles

Solicltors for the Respondents:

Messrs Dobson Mitchell

& Allport

Dates of hearing:

There was no oral

hearing in respect of

the form of the orders

following the judgment

of 30 September 1994.

m THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

DISTRICT RE-	1	TG 3001 of 1993
)

DIVISIa )

RE: b0WES PARK PTY LTQ

BETWEEN :	CHARLES BARRY HEADLAM AS TRUSTEE OF
THE C.B. AND M.J. H E A D W TRUST

Applicant

AND : S PARK PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND : JAN EDWARD HEADLAY

Second Respondent

AND : EDWARD HEADLAM

Cross-Claimant

AND : ES BARRY HEADLAM Cross-Respondent

CORAM: Burchett J.

PLACE: Sydney (heard in Hobart)

DATE : 18 November 1994

1.    The application be diemiesed.

2.    The cross-claim be dismissed.

3.    Any interlocutory orders be discharged.

4.   The costs of the respondents of and incidental to the

application (except to the extent that these costs may have been increased by the bringing of the cross-claim) be paid by Charles Barry Headlam, such costs to be taxed in default

of agreement and to include any reserved costs.

2 .

5.    The costs of the cross-respondent to the extent that those costa are referable to the institution of the cross-claim be pald by the cross-claimant, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

x?m:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.