AT CANBERRA ON w""EDNESDAY, 4 'i:'"AY 1988, A7 9. 48 .AM
(Continued from 4/3/87)
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
ClTl/1/RB
3
4/5/88
MASON CJ:
On 4 March 1987 the Court delivered judgment
in this matter and ordered that the appeal be allowed.
No order for costs was made and the Court gave the
parties the opportunity to submit appropriate orders,
including any order concerning the payment of
$5000 security for costs.
The parties have now
signed a consent order pursuant to Order 44 rule 23
consenting to the making of an order in the following
terms:
1. That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
2. That the sum of $5000 paid into the Court
as security for costs pursuant to the order
of the Full Court, dated at Sydney on
21 February 1986,be paid out to
Messrs Colin Biggers and Paisley, city agents
for the solicitors for the appellant.
There will be orders accordingly in those terms.
AT 9.49 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE
ClTl/2/HS
4
5/3/88
Pavey(2)
Details
AGLC
Pavey & Matthews Pty Limited v Paul [1988] HCATrans 83
Case
[1988] HCATrans 83
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal between Pavey & Matthews Pty Limited (appellant) and Paul (respondent). The dispute concerned the payment of costs following an earlier judgment by the Court on 4 March 1987, which had allowed the appeal.
The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the appropriate orders regarding the costs of the appeal and the disbursement of security for costs that had been paid into court. The parties had been given an opportunity to submit proposed orders for the Court's consideration.
The Court's reasoning was based on the parties' subsequent agreement. The appellant and respondent had reached a consent order, which the Court was asked to make. This consent order stipulated that the respondent would pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. Furthermore, it provided for the release of the $5000 paid as security for costs to the appellant's solicitors' agents. The Court indicated that orders would be made in accordance with these terms.