NETGLORY PTY LTD -v- CARATTI [2013] WASC 364 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 364 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2917/2010 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | EDELMAN J | 30/10/13 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Orders made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NETGLORY PTY LTD ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD JOANNE DE HOLLANDER |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs Whether appropriate to adjust costs orders Whether reserved costs should be included in cost orders without identification |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) |
Case References: | Netglory Pty Ltd v Caratti [2013] WASC 364 O'Rourke v P & B Corp Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S) Soia v Bennett [No 5] [2012] WASC 289 (S) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI
First Defendant
HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD
Second Defendant
JOANNE DE HOLLANDER
Third Party
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether appropriate to adjust costs orders - Whether reserved costs should be included in cost orders without identification
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Result:
Orders made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : No appearance
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Third Party : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Chris Stokes & Associates
First Defendant : Torrens Legal
Second Defendant : Torrens Legal
Third Party : No appearance
Cases referred to in judgment:
Netglory Pty Ltd v Caratti [2013] WASC 364
O'Rourke v P & B Corp Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S)
Soia v Bennett [No 5] [2012] WASC 289 (S)
1 EDELMAN J: When I delivered my reasons for decision in this matter the parties sought the opportunity to make submissions on costs. Brief submissions were e-mailed. The parties agreed that the issue would be dealt with on the papers.
2 The defendants sought the following orders (with minor amendments for clarity):
(1) The plaintiff's claims be dismissed.
(2) The counterclaims by the first and second defendants be upheld and it be declared that
(i) the Loan Agreement sued upon by the plaintiff between the plaintiff and the second defendant, and
(ii) the Guarantee between the plaintiff and first defendant,
are null and void.
(3) The plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendants including any reserved costs to be taxed if not agreed. These costs include the costs of obtaining the transcript of the trial.
(4) The Third Party Notice of the first defendant against the third party be dismissed with no order as to costs.
3 Only order (3) was opposed. Netglory said that the order should be that Netglorypay 50% of the costs of Mr Caratti and the Hocking Land Company to be taxed if not agreed. This…
Continue reading Netglory Pty Ltd v Caratti
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Netglory Pty Ltd v Caratti [2013] WASC 364 (S)
- Case
- [2013] WASC 364 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Netglory Pty Ltd brought an action against Caratti in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the recovery of costs following the conclusion of litigation. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to adjust the costs orders and whether reserved costs should be included in cost orders without proper identification.
The primary issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to make adjustments to the costs orders issued in the litigation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether reserved costs, which were not specifically identified, should be incorporated into the cost orders without explicit recognition. The court's analysis involved a review of the procedural fairness and the necessity of ensuring that all costs were properly accounted for and identified in the final orders.
In its reasoning, the court held that it was appropriate to adjust the costs orders to reflect any errors or omissions identified during the review process. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for transparency in cost orders. The court found that reserved costs should not be included in the cost orders without explicit identification and acknowledgment of their nature and amount. The court considered it essential that all parties were aware of the specific costs being claimed to maintain fairness in the litigation process.
The court made orders that the costs previously awarded were to be adjusted to correct any errors. Additionally, the court ruled that any reserved costs must be explicitly identified and quantified in future cost orders to ensure transparency and fairness. The final orders reflected the court's determination to uphold procedural fairness and ensure that all costs were accurately reflected in the litigation outcomes.
The primary issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to make adjustments to the costs orders issued in the litigation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether reserved costs, which were not specifically identified, should be incorporated into the cost orders without explicit recognition. The court's analysis involved a review of the procedural fairness and the necessity of ensuring that all costs were properly accounted for and identified in the final orders.
In its reasoning, the court held that it was appropriate to adjust the costs orders to reflect any errors or omissions identified during the review process. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for transparency in cost orders. The court found that reserved costs should not be included in the cost orders without explicit identification and acknowledgment of their nature and amount. The court considered it essential that all parties were aware of the specific costs being claimed to maintain fairness in the litigation process.
The court made orders that the costs previously awarded were to be adjusted to correct any errors. Additionally, the court ruled that any reserved costs must be explicitly identified and quantified in future cost orders to ensure transparency and fairness. The final orders reflected the court's determination to uphold procedural fairness and ensure that all costs were accurately reflected in the litigation outcomes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders made
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.