NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD -v- EASTERDAY [2009] WASC 191 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2009] WASC 191 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2364/2007	Heard:	16 JANUARY 2009, ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	28/07/09
Supplementary Delivered:	23/12/09
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application that costs be fixed and paid forthwith refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD CLARK ERVIN EASTERDAY LEONARD LANCELOT IRELAND KAYLENE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 462 195) BRENDA ANNE EASTERDAY WEBGO PTY LTD (ACN 009 022 057) FIM PTY LTD (ACN 008 964 609) PAUL CHRISTOPHER IRELAND ADAM JONATHON IRELAND AS NAMED EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DEAN EDWARD IRELAND
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for costs Whether quantum of costs should be fixed Whether costs should be paid forthwith Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66
Case References:	Pringle v Gloag (1879) 10 Ch D 676

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD -v- EASTERDAY [2009] WASC 191 (S) CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 16 JANUARY 2009, ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 28 JULY 2009 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 23 DECEMBER 2009 FILE NO/S : CIV 2364 of 2007

Consolidated by order of Justice Le Miere on 28 July 2009

BETWEEN : NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

CLARK ERVIN EASTERDAY

LEONARD LANCELOT IRELAND

First Defendants

KAYLENE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 462 195)

Second Defendant

BRENDA ANNE EASTERDAY

Third Defendant

WEBGO PTY LTD (ACN 009 022 057)

Fourth Defendant

FIM PTY LTD (ACN 008 964 609)

Fifth Defendant

(Page 2)

PAUL CHRISTOPHER IRELAND

Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2232 of 1990 BETWEEN : NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ADAM JONATHON IRELAND AS NAMED EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DEAN EDWARD IRELAND

CLARK ERVIN EASTERDAY

LEONARD LANCELOT IRELAND

Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for costs - Whether quantum of costs should be fixed - Whether costs should be paid forthwith - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

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

Result:

Application that costs be fixed and paid forthwith refused

(Page 3)

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2364 of 2007

Consolidated by order of Justice Le Miere on 28 July 2009

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S M Davies

First Defendants : Mr M Ryan

Second Defendant : Mr M Ryan

Third Defendant : Mr M Ryan

Fourth Defendant : Mr M Ryan

Fifth Defendant : Mr M Ryan

Sixth Defendant : Mr M Ryan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Deacons

First Defendants : Bostock & Ryan

Second Defendant : Bostock & Ryan

Third Defendant : Bostock & Ryan

Fourth Defendant : Bostock & Ryan

Fifth Defendant : Bostock & Ryan

Sixth Defendant : Bostock & Ryan

CIV 2232 of 1990

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S M Davies

Defendants : Mr M Ryan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Deacons

Defendants : Bostock & Ryan

(Page 4)

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

Pringle v Gloag…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Norilya Minerals Pty Ltd v Easterday

Details

AGLC: Norilya Minerals Pty Ltd v Easterday [2009] WASC 191 (S)
Case: [2009] WASC 191 (S)
Decision Date: 28 JULY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the matter were Norilya Minerals Pty Ltd, the applicant, and Easterday, the respondent. The dispute before the court centred around an application for costs by the applicant, who sought a determination on the quantum of costs and an order that these costs be paid forthwith. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the quantum of costs should be determined and whether the respondent should be ordered to pay these costs immediately. The court needed to consider the specific circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles concerning costs in civil litigation, including the circumstances in which costs are to be paid forthwith.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. It held that the quantum of costs should not be fixed and that the costs should not be paid forthwith. The court emphasised that the decision on costs, including whether they should be paid immediately, should turn on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify an immediate payment of costs. Consequently, the application for costs to be fixed and paid forthwith was refused.

No specific orders were made by the court in relation to the costs, leaving the matter open for further proceedings or negotiations between the parties. The decision underscored the importance of a case-by-case approach in determining the appropriate orders for costs in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application that costs be fixed and paid forthwith refused

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.