Souter v Condor Developments Pty Ltd

In the appeal Souter v Condor Developments Pty Ltd, the appellant (plaintiff) sought to overturn a decision of O'Neal DCJ, which ruled that there should be no order as to the costs of the trial and that the appellant was not entitled to interest on the damages of $72,000 awarded. The appellant argued for an entitlement to half of his costs of the action and interest on the judgment sum from the end of the trial. The respondent argued for no order as to the costs of the appeal or, alternatively, that the appellant should be entitled to only a portion of his costs. The respondent also cross-appealed, arguing that the appellant had not taken sufficient steps to proceed with the appeal.

The court examined the application of O 66 r 1(3) and O 66 r 2(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), and the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32. The court noted that the appellant had a wide discretion in determining costs but highlighted exceptions, including the power to order a party to pay costs for issues on which they had failed. The court also considered the appellant's success on the issues he raised, which necessitated the canvassing of all relevant material. The court found that the appellant was entitled to an order for half of his costs of the action and interest on the judgment sum from the end of the trial. The court also observed an anomaly regarding the requirement of leave to appeal costs from the District Court, a matter previously noted in previous judgments.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted half of his costs of the action and interest on the judgment sum from the end of the trial. The respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the appellant should recover its costs of the appeal.