Rann v Olsen No. Scciv-97-913

[2001] SASC 213

RANN  v  OLSEN

[2001] SASC 213

Full Court: Doyle CJ (Prior, Perry, Mullighan, Lander JJ)

1. DOYLE CJ:  In this matter the Full Court, comprising five judges, heard a Case Stated to the Full Court. On 12 April 2000 we published our reasons and made orders answering the questions in the Case Stated.

2. The question of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed. Recently, the parties informed the Court that they wished the court to decide the question of costs. In view of the fact that it was over a year since the Court had published its reasons, and because of difficulty in reconvening the Court of five judges, the Court directed the parties to file written submissions on costs, indicating that the Court would decide the question of costs on the basis of the written submissions, if able to do so.

3. The parties filed written submissions. The Court has considered them. The members of the Court are able to decide the matter on the papers. The Court is of the view that it should make a decision on the question of costs, and not leave that question to the trial judge.

4. We are unanimously of the view that the appropriate order is that the costs of the case stated be the defendant’s costs in the cause. We are of that view because, while the defendant succeeded on most issues argued on the case stated, there is no way of predicting the ultimate outcome of the case.

5. Accordingly, the order of the court is that the costs of the case stated be the defendant’s costs in the cause.

6. I think, Mr Whitington, you can proceed on the basis that the order made would be intended to embrace the application for costs, treating that as part of the Case Stated.