Pickering v Impact Drilling Pty Ltd (Ruling)

[2013] VCC 997

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CIVIL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION LIST
SERIOUS INJURY DIVISION

Case No. CI-11-01009

NOEL ANDREW PICKERING	Plaintiff
v
IMPACT DRILLING PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE BROOKES
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 and 8 August 2013
DATE OF RULING:	9 August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pickering v Impact Drilling Pty Ltd (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 997

---

RULING AS TO COSTS
---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D F Hoare-Lacy SC with Mr R C Forsyth	Patrick Noonan & Co
For the Defendant	Mr B R McKenzie	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

1       In this matter, the parties are largely in agreement about the costs orders consequential upon my findings, except for the question of certification for Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel and whether it ought go to the Costs Court.

2       I accept defendant Counsel’s submission that the Costs Court is a specialist Court with concurrent jurisdiction at least to hear these matters and in many cases it would be the preferable venue to determine these matters.

3       This case, however, has proceeded before me for two days on what defence Counsel says is an accounting exercise but certainly with its own difficulties in terms of interpretation and evidence.  It did require ultimately a test and assessment of the plaintiff’s credibility with respect to the putative representation that the basic wage could be increased to $125,000 within a relatively short time.

4       In all the circumstances, I consider that it was prudent for a solicitor to brief Senior and Junior Counsel in this matter and I, now being seized of the matter and having heard it over two days, feel that I am in as good a position as the Costs Court, if not better, and able to deal with this matter in a fairly efficient way.

- - -