Needham, Albert v Australian Chemist Analysts Pty Ltd

[1998] FCA 583

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 332  of   1994

BETWEEN:

ALBERT NEEDHAM
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CHEMIST ANALYSTS PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

GUY IMRE ZOLTAN KALOCSAI
SECOND RESPONDENT

RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be no order as to costs as to the motion to transfer proceedings from Sydney to Brisbane.

2. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs thrown away by the vacation of the trial hearing dates of 21 October 1996 to 25 October 1996, if any, and the costs of the motion to vacate the trial dates.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 332 of 1994

BETWEEN:

ALBERT NEEDHAM
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CHEMIST ANALYSTS PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

GUY IMRE ZOLTAN KALOCSAI
SECOND RESPONDENT

RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	29 MAY 1998
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 20 April 1998 I dismissed the principal proceedings and advised the parties to make written submissions on costs.  The purpose of that invitation was directed at the question of reserved costs.

Both parties have delivered written submissions as to costs.

By orders of 26 August 1994, 4 November 1994, 20 September 1995 and 2 November 1995, the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of directions hearings on those days.  On a number of other occasions directions hearings were held and various orders made, but on only two occasions were the costs of those hearings reserved.   I do not propose to make any costs order in respect of those occasions where costs were not reserved.

On 1 May 1996, costs were reserved when the principal proceedings were transferred from the Sydney Registry to the Brisbane Registry.  As to the costs of the motion to transfer the proceedings, Davies J ordered the transfer primarily on the basis that an earlier hearing date of a quite protracted matter would be had in Brisbane.  Particularly having had regard to that circumstance, I think that the fair order is to make no order as to costs as to the motion to transfer proceedings from Sydney to Brisbane.

On 23 September 1996, which was the occasion of a trial directions hearing before me, I ordered that the hearing dates of 21 October 1996 to 25 October 1996 be vacated because of Mr Kalocsai’s ill health.

As to the costs for vacating the hearing date, it seems to me that while Mr Kalocsai’s condition and the circumstances of his preparation for the case necessitated a delay in the hearing, neither of these circumstances were caused by the applicant.  As between the applicant and the respondents, it seems to me to be fair that I order that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs thrown away by the vacation of the trial hearing dates of 21 October 1996 to 25 October 1996, if any, and the costs of the motion to vacate the trial dates.

I have already ordered that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the trial of the principal proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.

I certify that this and the preceding  page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:            29 May 1998