Rann v Olsen No. Scciv-97-913

RANN v OLSEN
[2001] SASC 213
Full Court: Doyle CJ (Prior, Perry, Mullighan, Lander JJ)

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rann v Olsen, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with determining the question of costs in a case stated. The case involved a dispute between the parties, with the Court already having addressed the substantive issues and published its reasons on 12 April 2000. The matter before the Court was the determination of the costs associated with the case stated. The Court received written submissions from the parties and, after considering these submissions, found itself in a position to make a decision on the matter. The Court held that the appropriate order was that the costs of the case stated should be borne by the defendant. This decision was made because, while the defendant had succeeded on most of the issues argued in the case stated, the ultimate outcome of the case was still uncertain.

The Full Court emphasised that it was important to make a decision on the costs rather than leaving it to the trial judge. The Court was unanimous in its view that the defendant should bear the costs of the case stated, despite having succeeded on most issues. This decision was made in light of the uncertainty surrounding the final outcome of the case. The Court's decision was based on the written submissions provided by the parties and the consideration of those submissions. The Court found that it was in a position to make a decision on the costs based on the papers alone, and did not require the reconvening of the full bench of five judges. The Court's decision was that the costs of the case stated should be the defendant's costs in the cause. This decision was made with the understanding that the order would also encompass the application for costs, treating it as part of the case stated.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established