Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd - [2016] SASC 90

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
RODDA & ANOR v IAN RODDA PTY LTD & ANOR
[2016] SASC 90
Reasons of Judge Roder a Master of the Supreme Court
20 June 2016
PROCEDURE - COSTS
Application for the issue of an interim allocatur.
Rasch Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Bartholomaeus & Ors (No 3) [2013] SASC 14, applied.
Pickering v Smoothpool (No 6) (2001) 217 LSJS 178; [2001] SASC 440; Russo v Buck & Ors (No 5) [2010] SASC 27, considered.

RODDA & ANOR v IAN RODDA PTY LTD & ANOR
[2016] SASC 90

JUDGE RODER. In this action a Judge has ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the action, certified fit for senior counsel, to be adjudicated on a party/party basis if not agreed.
The parties entered into a deed on 21 October 2015 for the discontinuance of an appeal against the orders of the Judge which provided that:
If the costs payable under those orders are not agreed, the Respondents will proceed to have their costs under the Costs Orders and Further Costs orders adjudicated and, upon such adjudication, the Appellants will pay the costs in the sum adjudicated.
There is no dispute as to the liability to pay costs. Nor is it disputed that there will be a very substantial sum due by the defendants to the plaintiffs as between party and party for costs.
By FDN 91 filed on 29 March 2016, the plaintiffs sought the following orders:
1.   The plaintiffs are excused from preparation of a Short Form Claim for Costs in accordance with Rule 271 and instead are to proceed to prepare an abbreviated itemised claim listing attendances and other charges in chronological order to be served on the defendants in the form annexed hereto within 8 weeks.
2.   The plaintiffs are to make available for inspection to the defendants all documents on which the plaintiffs propose to rely if the claim proceeds to adjudication in accordance with Rule 271(3) within one week after service of the abbreviated itemised claim.
3.   The defendants are to inspect the said documents within 4 weeks after service of the abbreviated itemised claim.
4.   Having inspected the said documents the defendants are to respond to the itemised claim by inserting on the same document in the columns provided:
(a)whether or not they agree with each item; and
(b)the amount (if any) offered for any items which are not agreed;
and filing and serving the itemised claim with the said responses.
5.   Both parties are to provide their documents to each other electronically in Excel or Word format.
6.   An interim allocatur is to be issued for the sum of $650,000.00 payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
7.   The plaintiff and defendant are at liberty to apply for further orders on the adjudication.
8.   Adjourned for mention to a date to be fixed by the Court.
9.   Costs in the adjudication.
On 29 April 2016 Judge Bochner…

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 Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd [2016] SASC 90
Case: [2016] SASC 90
Decision Date: 20 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd, the case was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerns an application for costs. The applicant, Rodda, seeks an order for costs from the respondent, Ian Rodda Pty Ltd, following a legal dispute that was adjudicated previously. The matter was considered on the basis of written submissions and oral argument.

The central legal issues that the court was required to address involved the assessment of costs under the applicable legal framework. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent was liable for the applicant's costs under the circumstances of the case. The court also considered whether the applicant's costs were reasonable and necessary, and if there were any factors that should be taken into account in determining the costs order.

The court deliberated on the applicable principles of costs in Australian law, including the general rule that costs follow the event and the discretion of the court to order costs in a particular case. The court examined the submissions and evidence provided by both parties and considered the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties during the litigation process. Ultimately, the court found that the respondent was liable for the applicant's costs, and the amount was assessed based on the factors considered appropriate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and reasonableness in the award of costs.

The court made an order that Ian Rodda Pty Ltd pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, specifying the amount to be paid. The order also outlined the basis on which the costs were assessed and any considerations that influenced the determination. The decision provides guidance on the principles and factors that courts may consider when making orders for costs in similar cases.

Orders