Martin v Cadeng Pty Ltd

Case [2011] WADC 73 (S)
MARTIN -v- CADENG PTY LTD [2011] WADC 73 (S)
Last Update:  18/07/2011
MARTIN -v- CADENG PTY LTD [2011] WADC 73 (S)
Jurisdiction: DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   Citation No: [2011] WADC 73 (S)
Case No: BRO CIV:1/2009   Heard: 13­15 DECEMBER 2010, 14 JUNE 2011
Coram: DAVIS DCJ   Delivered: 11/05/2011
Location: BROOME   Supplementary Decision: 15/07/2011
No of Pages: 13   Judgment Part: 1 of 1
Result: Plaintiff entitled to recover only 50% of his costs from first defendant
Plaintiff to pay costs of the successful second defendant
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]
Parties: DENNIS MARTIN
CADENG PTY LTD
BROOME MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
Catchwords: Costs Claim for indemnity costs Calderbank offer Sanderson order Costs of a successful defendant Costs apportionment where plaintiff fails on a cause of action Turns on own facts
Legislation: Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 66 r 1(1) and r 2(a)
Case References: Coastal Hire Pty Ltd v Ewers [2009] WASCA 36
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261; [1993] FCA 259
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298
JWH Group Pty Ltd v Kimpura Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 39(S)
Kimpura Pty Ltd v JWH Group Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 134
Martin v Cadeng Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 73
Naidoo v Williamson [2008] WASCA 179; (2008) 37 WAR 516
Permanent Building Society v Wheeler [No 2] (1993) 10 WAR 569
Phillips Fox (a firm) v Westgold Resources NL [2000] WASCA 85
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Cable Sands Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] WASC 352(S)
Wilden Pty Ltd v Green [2009] WASCA 38; (2009) 38 WAR 429

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

                  IN CIVIL
LOCATION : BROOME CITATION :MARTIN -v- CADENG PTY LTD [2011] WADC 73 (S) CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 13­15 DECEMBER 2010, 14 JUNE 2011 DELIVERED : 11 MAY 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 15 JULY 2011 FILE NO/S : BRO CIV 1 of 2009 BETWEEN : DENNIS MARTIN
                  Plaintiff

                  AND

                  CADENG PTY LTD
                  First Defendant

                  BROOME MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
                  Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Claim for indemnity costs - Calderbank offer - Sanderson order - Costs of a successful defendant - Costs apportionment where plaintiff fails on a cause of action - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971,O 66 r 1(1) and r 2(a)

Result:

Plaintiff entitled to recover only 50% of his costs from first defendant
Plaintiff to pay costs of the successful second defendant

Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr G T Stubbs
    First Defendant : Ms C E Kierath
    Second Defendant : Ms C E Kierath

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Julia Barber & Co (Legal) Pty Ltd
    First Defendant : Norton Rose Australia
    Second Defendant : Norton Rose…

Continue reading Martin v Cadeng Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Martin v Cadeng Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 73 (S)
Case
[2011] WADC 73 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin v Cadeng Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the first defendant had acted as an agent for the second defendant and sought damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the first defendant had acted as an agent for the second defendant and breached fiduciary duties by misusing confidential information. The first defendant denied these allegations, and the second defendant denied any liability.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the plaintiff could recover his costs. The plaintiff sought to recover all of his costs from the first defendant, while the first defendant sought to limit the plaintiff's costs to 50%. The court also had to consider the costs of the second defendant, who had been successful in their defence.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only 50% of his costs from the first defendant. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for indemnity costs was not appropriate because the plaintiff had not made a Calderbank offer, and the court was not satisfied that the first defendant's conduct was unreasonable. The court also held that the Sanderson order was not appropriate because the plaintiff had not succeeded on all of his claims. The court found that the second defendant was entitled to costs because the plaintiff's claim against them had failed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only 50% of his costs from the first defendant and that the plaintiff was to pay the costs of the successful second defendant. The court held that the costs of the second defendant should be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff entitled to recover only 50% of his costs from first defendant

Plaintiff to pay costs of the successful second defendant

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.