O'Sullivan v Morton - [1911] HCA 27

390 HIGH COURT

[191L

H. C. OF A. stances, supposing that we have jurisdiction to review the refusal

of the County Court Judge to enlarge the time, I think we ought

Absistsono to have regard to the apparent facts of the case, and that, if Gbeat appellant would have only a problematical and infinitesimal

SoTjTHEBN hope of success in the event of a new trial, we ought in mercy to Min in g Co., the parties to refuse to enlarge the time. For myself, I doubt Lia^ ity whether a verdict for the appellant could have stood, I can see no ground, therefore, for reviewing the discretion of the Judge

Griffith C.J.

of the County Court, if we have power to do so. I think the

appeal should be dismissed.

Barton J.

I concur.

O’Connor J.

I am of the same opinion.

Appeal dismissed w ith costs.

Solicitors, for the appellant, M urphy & Connolly. Solicitors, for the respondents. Madden & Butler.

B. L.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

O’SULLIVAN

Appellant;

Plaintiff,

AND

MORTON .

Respondent.

Defendant,

H. C. OF A.

1911.ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OP

VICTORIA.

Melbourne ,

Appeal from Supreme Court o f Slate—Appeal as to costs only—Special leave— Trial

June

15.

hy jury

Action fo r several causes o f action—Plaintif succeeding on some and

Griffith C.J.,

Barton and

failing on others — Costs of issues —Rules o f the Supreme Court o f Victoria

O’Connor JJ.

1906, Order L X V ., r. 1.

391

12 C.L.R.]

OF AUSTRALIA.

An action for damages amounting to £4,500, in which several causes of action were joined, was tried before a jury who, after a hearing of 17 days, found for

H. C. OF A.

1911.

the plaintiff on one of the causes of action with £200 damages, and for the ' ■

defendant on the others. The Supreme Court ordered that the plaintiff should ^ Sullivan

V .

recover nothing in respect of the issues on which the defendant succeeded, and

Mokton.

that the defendant should recover the taxed costs of those issues ; that the plaintiff should recover the £200 damages, and the taxed costs of the issue on whicli those damages were awarded ; that the damages and costs awarded to •

the plaintiff should he set off against the costs awarded to the defendant; that the costs of each issue should be taxed as nearly as possible as if each issue had been the subject matter of a separate action ; and that costs which were common to issues on which the plaintiff and defendant had succeeded should be apportioned rateably between such issues. On an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court,

Held, that as the question of costs was one of discretion, the amount involved was not substantial, and the order made was manifestly just, leave to appeal should be refused.

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court : O’Sullivan v. Morion,

(1911) V.L.K., 249 ;…

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 O'Sullivan v Morton

Details

AGLC: O'Sullivan v Morton [1911] HCA 27
Case: [1911] HCA 27
Decision Date: 15 June 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were O'Sullivan (appellant) and Morton (respondent). The dispute concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia, which had granted special leave to appeal, but the appeal itself was limited to the issue of costs arising from proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court had erred in its decision regarding the apportionment of costs following the trial. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Supreme Court's exercise of its discretion in awarding costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The High Court considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion in awarding costs. It examined whether the Supreme Court had taken into account all relevant factors and had not been influenced by irrelevant considerations. The court's reasoning focused on the established legal principles that costs generally follow the event, but that a court retains a broad discretion to depart from this principle where justice requires, based on the conduct of the parties and the overall circumstances of the litigation.

The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal in relation to costs, finding that the Supreme Court had miscarried its discretion. The court made orders varying the costs order made by the Supreme Court.

Orders