Noye v Robbins [No 6]

Case [2008] WASC 266


NOYE -v- ROBBINS [No 6] [2008] WASC 266


Link to Appeal :

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASC 266
Case No:CIV:2231/199929 JANUARY, 3 JULY & 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
Coram:EM HEENAN J20/11/08
42Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Order for joinder of the State of Western Australia as an additional defendant in CIV 2231 of 1999
Order for plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs in accordance with conditional order of 29 January 2008
A
PDF Version
Parties:JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Catchwords:

Costs
Police officer
Indemnity principle
Funding agreement for defendants' costs of action
All defendants' costs met by State
Entitlement of successful defendant to an order for costs against plaintiff
Terms of funding arrangement
Necessity for joinder of State
Indemnity
Subrogation
Payment by third party of defendants' liability
Restitution

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

ABB Power Generation Ltd v Chapple (2001) 25 WAR 158
Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd [1921] 1 KB 495
Angor Pty Ltd v Ilich Motor Co Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 65
Backhouse v Judd [1925] SASR 395
Baird v Roberts [1977] 2 NSWLR 389
Bakewell v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (SA) [1937] HCA 11; (1937) 58 CLR 743
Blackall v Trotter (No 1) [1969] VR 639
Blundel v Musgrave (1956) 96 CLR 73
Boscawen v Bajwa [1996] 1 WLR 328
Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 177 CLR 403
Carson v Pickersgill & Sons (1885) 14 QBD 859
City Bank of Sydney v McLaughlin (1909) 9 CLR 615
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Colonial Finance Mortgage Investment & Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1906] HCA 30; (1906) 4 CLR 57
Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [2007] NSWSC 834
Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWCA 176
Dyktynski v BHP Titanium Minerals Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 154
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1997) 139 CLR 161
Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645
Harold v Smith (1860) 5 H&N 381; (1860) 157 ER 1229
Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59
Hudgson v Endrust (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 152
Inglis v Moore (No 2) (1979) 46 FLR 470
Insurance Commission (WA) v Kightly [2005] WASCA 154; (2005) 30 WAR 380
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] VSC 212
Johnson v Santa Teresa Housing Association (1992) 83 NTR 14
Kars v Kars [1996] HCA 37; (1996) 187 CLR 354
Lenthall v Hillson [1933] SASR 31
McCullum v Ifield [1969] 2 NSWR 329
McLaughlin v The City Bank of Sydney (1914) 18 CLR 598
Morris v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1973] QB 792
National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569
New Pinnacle Group Silver Mining Co v Luhrig Coal & Ore Dressing Appliances Co (1902) 2 SR (NSW) 50
Norman v Federal Commissioner of…

Continue reading Noye v Robbins [No 6]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Noye v Robbins [No 6] [2008] WASC 266
Case
[2008] WASC 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noye v Robbins [No 6] involved a dispute concerning the costs of legal proceedings. The plaintiff, Noye, sought an order for costs against the first defendant, Robbins, who had been successful in their action. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues revolved around the indemnity principle and the funding agreement for the defendants' costs of action, which was entirely borne by the State of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the successful defendant, Robbins, was entitled to an order for costs against the plaintiff, Noye. Additionally, the court had to examine the terms of the funding arrangement between the defendants and the State. Another issue was whether it was necessary for the State to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and if so, under what legal principles such as indemnity, subrogation, or restitution, Robbins could seek reimbursement of costs from the plaintiff.

The court found that Robbins was entitled to an order for costs against Noye, in accordance with the conditional order of 29 January 2008. The court ruled that the State of Western Australia should be joined as an additional defendant in the proceedings to ensure a comprehensive resolution of the funding arrangement. The court concluded that under the principles of indemnity, Robbins could seek reimbursement of costs from Noye, and thus ordered Noye to pay Robbins' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order for joinder of the State of Western Australia as an additional defendant in CIV 2231 of 1999

Order for plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs in accordance with conditional order of 29 January 2008

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.