Ranieri v Nominal Defendant - [2001] NSWSC 125

CITATION: Ranieri v Nominal Defendant & Ors [2001] NSWSC 125

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20860 of 1995; 20862 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 23 February 2001.

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 March 2001

PARTIES :

Jennifer Kathryn Ranieri (Plaintiff 20860/1995)
Phillip Mario Ranieri as Executor of the Estate of the late Denise Ranieri (Plaintiff 20862/1995)
v
In each matter:
The Nominal Defendant (First Defendant/First Cross Claimant to First Cross Claim/Fourth Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)
Dana Australia Pty Limited T/as Truckline Parts Centre (Second Defendant/Fourth Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant to Second Cross-Claim)
Roads And Traffic Authority Of New South Wales (Third Defendant/Third Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/First Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)
Shellharbour City Council (First Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/Second Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)
State of New South Wales (Second Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/Third Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass

COUNSEL : Dr A Morrison SC/Mr D Hooke (Plaintiffs)
Mr F S McAlary QC/Mr D Ronzani (First
Defendant/First Cross Claimant to First Cross Claim/Fourth Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)
Mr J Maconachie QC (Second Defendant/Fourth Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant to Second Cross-Claim)
Mr S Fonti (Third Defendant/Third Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/First Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)

SOLICITORS: Robson & Oliver (Plaintiffs)
Abbott Tout (First Defendant/First Cross Claimant to First Cross Claim/Fourth Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)
Connery & Partners (Second Defendant/Fourth Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/Cross-Claimant to Second Cross-Claim)
I V Knight - Crown Solicitor (Third Defendant/Third Cross-Defendant to First Cross-Claim/ First Cross-Defendant to Second Cross-Claim)

CATCHWORDS: Costs - plaintiff is successful against one only of three defendants - claim for indemnity costs on question of liability against unsuccessful defendant and claim for Bullock or Sanderson Order - proliferation of parties and multiple cross-claims.

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988, s 45.
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 76.
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 52A, r 32.

CASES CITED: N/A

DECISION: See Paragraphs 18, 23, 29-31.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER MALPASS

THURSDAY 8 MARCH 2001

20860 of 1995 JENNIFER KATHRYN RANIERI v NOMINAL DEFENDANT & ORS
20862 OF 1995 PHILLIP MARIO RANIERI as Executor of the Estate of the Late DENISE RANIERI

JUDGMENT

1   I have earlier delivered judgments in these matters. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in those judgments.

2   I am now asked to deal with certain questions of costs in proceedings numbered 20860 of 1995 and 20862 of 1995. The applications in each of those proceedings have been heard together. It is common ground that the result in one set of proceedings will be the result in the other set of proceedings.
3   The plaintiffs seek the following orders in relation to costs in each of the two actions:-

“1.1 The First Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings including reserved costs (if any);

1.2 The First Defendant pay the costs of the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant of the proceedings; and

1.3 The First Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs in respect of liability on an indemnity basis.”

4…

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 Ranieri v Nominal Defendant

Details

AGLC: Ranieri v Nominal Defendant [2001] NSWSC 125
Case: [2001] NSWSC 125
Decision Date: 8 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ranieri v Nominal Defendant involved the plaintiff, Ranieri, who sought indemnity costs against one of the defendants, the Nominal Defendant, after being successful in the action against one of three defendants. The plaintiff also sought a Bullock or Sanderson Order to address the issue of costs in the context of the proliferation of parties and multiple cross-claims. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the plaintiff's entitlement to indemnity costs against the unsuccessful defendant, given that the plaintiff was only successful against one of the three defendants. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover indemnity costs under the relevant costs provisions, and if a Bullock or Sanderson Order was appropriate given the complexity of the case and the number of parties involved. The court had to consider the principles of costs in successful actions and the circumstances that warranted such an order.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs against the unsuccessful defendant as the circumstances did not justify such an order. The court found that the plaintiff's success against one defendant did not entitle them to indemnity costs against another defendant who was not the subject of the successful claim. Furthermore, the court determined that a Bullock or Sanderson Order was not warranted in this case, given that the plaintiff had already been successful in their action against one of the defendants. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and fairness in the allocation of costs, particularly in cases with multiple parties and cross-claims.

No further orders were made regarding costs beyond the decision on indemnity costs and the Bullock or Sanderson Order. The court's ruling clarified the principles applicable to indemnity costs and the appropriate circumstances for making a Bullock or Sanderson Order, providing guidance for future cases involving complex litigation and multiple parties.

Orders