Nelson v Moorcraft

[2012] WADC 170 (S2)

NELSON -v- MOORCRAFT [2012] WADC 170 (S2)

Last Update:  08/05/2014

NELSON -v- MOORCRAFT [2012] WADC 170 (S2)
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WADC 170 (S2)
Case No:	ALB CIV:3/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	WAGER DCJ	Delivered:	11/12/2012
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	02/05/2014
No of Pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs of the action awarded to the defendant
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	PETER STANLEY NELSON PETER MOORCRAFT
Catchwords:	Costs Clarification of terms of cost order
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nelson v Moorcraft [2012] WADC 170 (S)

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : NELSON -v- MOORCRAFT [2012] WADC 170 (S2) CORAM : WAGER DCJ HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 2 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : ALB CIV 3 of 2011 BETWEEN : PETER STANLEY NELSON

Plaintiff

AND

PETER MOORCRAFT
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Clarification of terms of cost order

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs of the action awarded to the defendant

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance
Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Not applicable
Defendant : H Sklarz

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nelson v Moorcraft [2012] WADC 170 (S)

1 WAGER DCJ: On 13 February 2013 I delivered a supplementary decision in respect of the judgment in this matter: Nelson v Moorcraft [2012] WADC 170 (S).

2 I ordered that costs be awarded to the defendant however the terms of the orders to be extracted remain unsettled.

3 By letters dated 9 September 2013, 25 September 2013 and 28 April 2014 Mr Sklarz has sought to clarify that the order made related to the costs of the action and was not an order restricted to the costs of the trial.

4 Although self-represented at trial the plaintiff, Mr Nelson, was represented by Haynes Robinson Lawyers in respect of the application for costs. By a letter dated 23 January 2013 to the defendant, Haynes Robinson specifically referred to the plaintiff's pending application to the trial judge as being an application 'to reserve the costs of the action' pending the determination of the appeal.

5 On 5 February 2013 Mr Kyle appeared on the plaintiff's behalf in respect of the issue of costs and made submissions consistent with an application relating to the costs of the action. Mr Kyle referred to the background of the action prior to trial (ts 38), and sought to present an argument based upon a full knowledge of the circumstances of the trial including the background (ts 39 and ts 44).

6 At the commencement of trial on 23 October 2012 counsel for the defendant referred to the preparation of the matter for trial in the context of taking instructions and dealing with pre-trial matters. This was relevant because it followed on from a background of limited agreement and cooperation when both parties had been self-represented. The defendant's application has always been that the costs of the action were sought.

7 If the order made on 13 February 2013 requires clarification then I confirm that the order made is that the costs of the action were awarded to the defendant.

 |   |