ST BARBARA MINES LTD -v- ATKINS [2000] WASC 252
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 252 | |
| 17/10/2000 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:2023/1999 | 5 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 5/09/00 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the application in any event | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ST BARBARA MINES LTD (ACN 009 165 066) COLIN ROSS ATKINS |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Costs of application Turns on its own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Re Campbell; Ex p Official Trustee (1987) 72 ALR 251 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 STP (Gas) Retail Pty Ltd v Jubilee Road Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980690; 17 September 1998 Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-691 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
COLIN ROSS ATKINS
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Costs of application - Turns on its own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the application in any event
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr M H Zilko
Defendant : Mr K C Staffa
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Minter Ellison
Defendant : Kevin Staffa
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Re Campbell; Ex p Official Trustee (1987) 72 ALR 251
Case(s) also cited:
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
STP (Gas) Retail Pty Ltd v Jubilee Road Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980690; 17 September 1998
Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-691
(Page 3)
1 MASTER SANDERSON: This was the defendant's application for leave to enter judgment. After hearing argument I dismissed the defendant's application and delivered short oral reasons for doing so. I indicated to the parties that I could see no reason why costs should not follow the event. However, this entailed the making of a costs order against the defendant who is an undischarged bankrupt. A question arose as to whether, if such an order was made, the defendant's trustee in bankruptcy would be liable for any costs order. Neither counsel was in a position to address this question and accordingly I adjourned the question of costs to allow both parties to file written submissions Written submissions were duly filed on behalf of the plaintiff. No submissions were received on behalf of the defendant.
2 It is clear from the authorities that an order for costs made against a bankrupt defendant does not involve the trustee in bankruptcy in any liability. This clearly emerges from the decision in Re Campbell; Ex p Official Trustee (1987) 72 ALR 251. That being the case, it seems to me appropriate that I should make a costs order against the defendant.
3 The order will be that the defendant pay the costs of the application, including the reserved costs, in any event.
Details
- AGLC
- St Barbara Mines Ltd v Atkins [2000] WASC 252
- Case
- [2000] WASC 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of St Barbara Mines Ltd v Atkins was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. St Barbara Mines Ltd was the plaintiff, and Atkins was the defendant. The dispute centred around the costs incurred by the plaintiff during an application. Specifically, the plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to pay the costs of the application. The case was determined based on the unique facts presented.
The central legal issue was whether the defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court was required to consider the principles governing costs in legal applications and the circumstances surrounding this particular case. The court needed to decide if the defendant's conduct warranted an order for the plaintiff to recover the costs of the application.
The court examined the facts and determined that the defendant's conduct justified an order for the plaintiff to recover the costs. The court found that the application's costs turned on the specific facts of the case, and the defendant's actions warranted the plaintiff's recovery of the costs. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. This decision was based on the unique circumstances and the defendant's conduct during the proceedings.
The central legal issue was whether the defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court was required to consider the principles governing costs in legal applications and the circumstances surrounding this particular case. The court needed to decide if the defendant's conduct warranted an order for the plaintiff to recover the costs of the application.
The court examined the facts and determined that the defendant's conduct justified an order for the plaintiff to recover the costs. The court found that the application's costs turned on the specific facts of the case, and the defendant's actions warranted the plaintiff's recovery of the costs. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. This decision was based on the unique circumstances and the defendant's conduct during the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the application in any event
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.