Rosenboom v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 1047

CITATION: Rosenboom & Ors v Qantas Airways Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1047

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20131/01; 20132/01; 20080/01; 20136/01; 20079/01; 20711/00; 20710/00; 20009/01

HEARING DATE(S): 21 October 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 November 2002

PARTIES :

Sonya Rosenboom (P in 20131/01)
Mavis Bridge (P in 20132/01)
Lyn Massey (P in 20080/01)
Matthew Frost (P in 20136/01)
Megan McEwan (P in 20079/01)
Roystone Pursehouse (P in 20711/00)
Regina Woodward (P in 20710/00)
Todd Jaques (P in 20009/01)
Qantas Airways Limited (D1 in 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20136/01, 20079/01 & 20009/01)
Malaysian Airline System Berhad (D2 in 20136/01)
PT Garuda Indonesia Limited (D1 in 20711/00)
British Airways Plc (D1 in 20710/00)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (D2 in 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20711/00, 20710/00, 20079/01 & 20009/01; D3 in 20136/01)

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M McHugh for the Plaintiff in each matter
No appearance for the First Defendant in matters 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20136/01, 20079/01 & 20009/01
Mr A Baykitch (solicitor advocate) for the Second Defendant in matter 20136/01
Mr M Gray-Spencer (solicitor advocate) for the First Defendant in matter 20711/00
Mr B Shields for the First Defendant in matter 20710/00
Mr S Donaldson SC for the Second Defendant in matters 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20711/00, 20711/00, 20079/01 & 20009/01 and for the Third Defendant in matter 20136/01

SOLICITORS: Slater & Gordon Pty Ltd Lawyers for the Plaintiff in each matter
Minter Ellison Lawyers for the First Defendant in matters 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20136/01, 20079/01 & 20009/01
Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers for the Second Defendant in matter 20136/01
Riley Gray-Spencer for the First Defendant in matter 20711/00
Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers for the First Defendant in matter 20710/00
Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the Second Defendant in matters 20131/01, 20132/01, 20080/01, 20711/00, 20711/00, 20079/01 & 20009/01 and for the Third Defendant in matter 20136/01

CATCHWORDS: Costs - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970, s76
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 52A r 11

CASES CITED: Milne v Attorney General (Tasmania) (1956) 95 CLR 460

DECISION: Orders 2, 3 & 4 made on 6 September 2002 varied by adding to each such order the following words: "except the plaintiff's costs of preparing, filing and serving the notice of motion and the evidence in support thereof."

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Sperling J

Tuesday, 12 November 2002

20131/01 Rosenboom v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor
20132/01 Bridge v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor
20080/01 Massey v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor
20136/01 Frost v Qantas Airways Ltd & Ors
20079/01 McEwan v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor
20711/00 Pursehouse v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd & Anor
20710/00 Woodward v British Airways Plc & Anor
20009/01 Jaques v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor

1 Sperling J: I refer to the order for costs which I made in the judgment given on 6 September 2001 with liberty to apply in that regard. In the event, I have been…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rosenboom v Qantas Airways Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 1047
Decision Date: 12 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard a case between the applicant, Rosenboom, and the respondent, Qantas Airways Ltd, concerning the recovery of costs associated with a legal dispute. Rosenboom sought an order for costs against Qantas, arguing that they were entitled to the recovery of expenses incurred during the litigation process. The nature of the dispute revolved around the terms of a settlement agreement between the parties and the allocation of costs under the agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether Rosenboom was entitled to recover the costs claimed under the terms of the settlement agreement.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Rosenboom was entitled to recover the costs claimed under the terms of the settlement agreement. The court had to interpret the agreement to ascertain the obligations of the parties concerning cost recovery. Additionally, the court considered whether the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary in the context of the legal proceedings. The court also examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the recovery of costs beyond the terms of the settlement agreement.

The court, after examining the settlement agreement and the circumstances of the case, found that Rosenboom was not entitled to the costs claimed. The court held that the terms of the settlement agreement did not provide for the recovery of the costs in question. Furthermore, the court determined that the costs claimed were not reasonable and necessary, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the recovery of the costs. Consequently, the court dismissed Rosenboom's application for costs, finding no basis for awarding the costs claimed against Qantas. The court's decision was based on the clear terms of the settlement agreement and the lack of any exceptional circumstances that would justify deviating from those terms.

Rosenboom's application for costs against Qantas Airways Ltd was dismissed. The court ruled that Rosenboom was not entitled to recover the costs claimed under the terms of the settlement agreement. The court's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the agreement and the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the agreement's terms. No costs were awarded to Rosenboom, and the matter concluded with the dismissal of Rosenboom's application for costs.

Orders