ROLLINGS -v- PORTRANGE PTY LTD [2014] WADC 56 (S)

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 56 (S)
Case No:	CIV:258/2010	Heard:	15-17 JANUARY 2014
Coram:	SCOTT DCJ	Delivered:	24/04/14
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Delivered:	26/08/14
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Second defendant entitled to costs to be taxed on a solicitor and client basis
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY NOEL ROLLINGS PORTRANGE PTY LTD XSTRATA NICKEL AUSTRALASIA OPERATIONS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Construction of indemnity clause in contract Whether costs of proceedings ought to be awarded on a party and party or solicitor and client basis
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 s 64(3) Supreme Court Act 1935 s 37
Case References:	Abi Group Ltd v Sandtara Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 45 Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28 Chen v Kevin McNamara & Son Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 229 Clambake Pty Ltd v Tipperary Projects Pty Ltd [No 5] [2009] WASC 141 Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority(No. 2) [2005] VSCA 298 Irani v St George Bank Ltd (No 3) [2005] VSC 456 Kheirs Financial Services Pty Ltd v Aussie Home Loans Pty Ltd [2010] VSCA 355 Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney South West Area Health Service (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 1139 Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd v Barker [2004] SASC 58 Rumball v Mortimore [2000] WASC 126 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ROLLINGS -v- PORTRANGE PTY LTD [2014] WADC 56 (S) CORAM : SCOTT DCJ HEARD : 15-17 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2014 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 26 AUGUST 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 258 of 2010 BETWEEN : BRADLEY NOEL ROLLINGS

Plaintiff

AND

PORTRANGE PTY LTD

First Defendant

XSTRATA NICKEL AUSTRALASIA OPERATIONS PTY LTD

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Construction of indemnity clause in contract - Whether costs of proceedings ought to be awarded on a party and party or solicitor and client basis

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 s 64(3)

Supreme Court Act 1935 s 37

Result:

Second defendant entitled to costs to be taxed on a solicitor and client basis

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : Ms B A Mangan

Second Defendant : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Not applicable

First Defendant : Jarman McKenna

Second Defendant : HBA Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Abi Group Ltd v Sandtara Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 45
Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28
Chen v Kevin McNamara & Son Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 229
Clambake Pty Ltd v Tipperary Projects Pty Ltd [No 5] [2009] WASC 141
Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No. 2) [2005] VSCA 298

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 Rollings v Portrange Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rollings v Portrange Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 56 (S)
Case: [2014] WADC 56 (S)
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rollings v Portrange Pty Ltd, the primary dispute centred around the interpretation of an indemnity clause within a contract between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Rollings, sought to recover costs incurred during the proceedings on a party and party basis, while the second defendant, Portrange Pty Ltd, argued that the costs should be taxed on a solicitor and client basis in accordance with the indemnity clause.

The primary legal issue before the court was the proper construction and application of the indemnity clause. The court had to determine whether the clause entitled the second defendant to have its costs taxed on a solicitor and client basis or whether the costs should be taxed on a party and party basis. This hinged on the precise wording and scope of the indemnity clause within the contract.

The court, after considering the arguments and relevant authorities, concluded that the indemnity clause clearly entitled the second defendant to have its costs taxed on a solicitor and client basis. The court found that the language of the clause unambiguously supported this interpretation. As such, the court ruled in favour of the second defendant, awarding it the right to have its costs taxed on a solicitor and client basis. This decision was based on a strict interpretation of the contractual terms, reflecting the parties' intention as expressed in the document.

Orders

Orders of the court

Second defendant entitled to costs to be taxed on a solicitor and client basis

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.