Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2]

NETLINE PTY LTD -v- QAV PTY LTD [No 2] [2015] WASC 113 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 113 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1289/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	26/05/15
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Defendant pay 50% of the plaintiffs' costs of the action, to be taxed if not agreed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NETLINE PTY LTD KATHRYN ISABEL LANCE QAV PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Plaintiffs successful on whether defendant entitled to terminate contract Plaintiffs unsuccessful in claiming specific performance of agency agreement Appropriate costs orders
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1
Case References:	Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 113 Singh v Kaur Bal [2011] WASC 303 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : NETLINE PTY LTD -v- QAV PTY LTD [No 2] [2015] WASC 113 (S) CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1289 of 2014 BETWEEN : NETLINE PTY LTD

KATHRYN ISABEL LANCE
Plaintiffs

AND

QAV PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Plaintiffs successful on whether defendant entitled to terminate contract - Plaintiffs unsuccessful in claiming specific performance of agency agreement - Appropriate costs orders

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1

Result:

Defendant pay 50% of the plaintiffs' costs of the action, to be taxed if not agreed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : No appearance (on the papers)
Defendant : No appearance (on the papers)

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Lavan Legal
Defendant : Lawton Gillon

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

Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 113
Singh v Kaur Bal [2011] WASC 303 (S)



1 BEECH J: On 2 April 2015, I published reasons for decision in this action.1 These reasons deal with the costs of the action.

2 I will use the same terminology and abbreviations in these reasons. In summary, in my reasons for decision I:

(1) rejected the Manager's contention that the Split Return Agreement contained an implied term entitling the Manager to terminate it on reasonable notice;

(2) found that, consequently, the Manager's purported termination of the Split Return Agreement by its letter of 16 December 2013 was of no effect;

(3) declined to grant specific performance of the Split Return Agreement, ordering an award of damages to the Owners, to be assessed; and

(4) found that on a proper construction of cl 9 of the Split Return Agreement, the Manager was not entitled to deduct booking fees from moneys to be remitted to the Owners.

3 On 2 April 2015, I made orders giving effect to those conclusions, and for the exchange of submissions and affidavits on the question of costs. I also ordered that the question of costs be determined on the papers.

4 Both parties claim to be entitled to costs orders in their favour.

The Owners'…