Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1990] HCATrans 116
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCATrans 116
[1990] HCATrans 116
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for costs before Brennan J of the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr. Harvey, sought to make submissions regarding the way costs were dealt with in the court below, where the trial judge, Mr. Justice Kelly, had limited the costs awarded to the plaintiff to seven days of a ten-day hearing, a decision that was not disturbed by the Full Court.
The primary legal issue before Brennan J was how to best address the application for costs, particularly given the limited instructions available to counsel for the respondent. Brennan J considered whether the application should be dealt with by way of written submissions rather than oral argument.
Brennan J determined that a satisfactory approach would be for the applicant to put his submissions in writing, identifying the precise order sought, and to provide copies to the other side, who would then have an opportunity to respond in writing. This procedure was adopted to ensure fairness and allow for a considered determination of the costs application.
The primary legal issue before Brennan J was how to best address the application for costs, particularly given the limited instructions available to counsel for the respondent. Brennan J considered whether the application should be dealt with by way of written submissions rather than oral argument.
Brennan J determined that a satisfactory approach would be for the applicant to put his submissions in writing, identifying the precise order sought, and to provide copies to the other side, who would then have an opportunity to respond in writing. This procedure was adopted to ensure fairness and allow for a considered determination of the costs application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0