Schuller v S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2015] SASCFC 190

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Civil)
SCHULLER v S J WEBB NOMINEES PTY LTD (NO 2)
[2015] SASCFC 190
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Stanley and The Honourable Justice Lovell)
10 December 2015
PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT
PROCEDURE - COSTS - SECURITY FOR COSTS
This is an application for costs.
In this matter, the Court dismissed the appeal. The respondent now seeks an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. It also seeks an order that the amount of $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal pursuant to an order made by a Judge of this Court, be paid to the respondent’s solicitors. The appellant seeks an order that the respondent should have 80 per cent of its costs of the appeal on a party/party basis.
Held (the Court):
1. The appellant is to pay the respondent its costs of and incidental to the appeal to this Court to be agreed or taxed.
2. The amount of $15,000 and interest thereon paid into court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal is to be paid out to the respondent’s solicitors.
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 40(1); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 263(1), r 263(2); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 37, referred to.
Cretazzo V Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4, applied.
C.A.L No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390, considered.

SCHULLER v S J WEBB NOMINEES PTY LTD (NO 2)
[2015] SASCFC 190
Full Court: Gray, Stanley and Lovell JJ
THE COURT:

In this matter, the court dismissed the appeal. The respondent seeks an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. It also seeks an order that the amount of $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal pursuant to an order made by a Judge of this Court, be paid to the respondent’s solicitors. The appellant seeks an order that the respondent should have 80 per cent of its costs of the appeal on a party/party basis.
The award of costs is in the discretion of the court and the court may award costs on any basis it considers appropriate.[1] As a general rule, costs follow the event.[2]   That general rule is subject to specific rules to the contrary and to prescribed exceptions, none of which are relevant to this case.[3] The court’s discretion as to costs is absolute and unfettered, except that it must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily or capriciously, and it cannot be exercised on grounds unconnected with the litigation.[4]
[1]    Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 40(1).
[2] 6SCR 263(1).
[3] 6SCR 263(2).
[4]    Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 per Bray CJ at 11.
In this matter, while the appeal was dismissed, the respondent was unsuccessful in pursuing a…

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 Schuller v S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2015] SASCFC 190
Decision Date: 10 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schuller (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria against a decision of a single judge. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability to pay costs to S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (the respondent). The appeal also involved the application of security for costs that had been paid into court by the appellant.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Additionally, the court had to decide the disposition of the sum of $15,000 that the appellant had paid into court as security for the respondent's costs of the appeal.

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party typically pays the successful party's costs. In this instance, the appellant was unsuccessful in its appeal. Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. Furthermore, as the respondent had succeeded in the appeal, the court ordered that the $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for costs be paid out to the respondent's solicitors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant is to pay the respondent its costs of and incidental to the appeal to this Court to be agreed or taxed.

2. The amount of $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal is to be paid out to the respondent’s solicitors.

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.