STALEY -v- PIVOT GROUP PTY LTD [No 6] [2010] WASC 228 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASC 228 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1776/2009	Heard:	21 & 22 SEPTEMBER 2009, 4-7 & 10-13 MAY 2010 AND ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	30/08/10
Supplementary Delivered:	8/11/10
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders for costs of action on indemnity basis
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHN ROBERT STALEY ELIZABETH FLORENCE STALEY PIVOT GROUP PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Application by successful defendant for indemnity costs of trial Unreasonable conduct on part of plaintiff relied upon Indemnity costs orders made
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commission of Taxation [2001] HCA 26; (2001) 179 ALR 406 Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources [No 5] [2008] WASCA 181 EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1983] Ch 59 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 3] [2009] WASC 355 Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 5] [2010] WASC 124 Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 6] [2010] WASC 228 Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129(S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : STALEY -v- PIVOT GROUP PTY LTD [No 6] [2010] WASC 228 (S) CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 21 & 22 SEPTEMBER 2009, 4-7 & 10-13 MAY 2010 AND ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 30 AUGUST 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 8 NOVEMBER 2010 FILE NO/S : CIV 1776 of 2009 BETWEEN : JOHN ROBERT STALEY

ELIZABETH FLORENCE STALEY

Plaintiffs

AND

PIVOT GROUP PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Application by successful defendant for indemnity costs of trial - Unreasonable conduct on part of plaintiff relied upon - Indemnity costs orders made

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Orders for costs of action on indemnity basis

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr D Garnsworthy & K C B Staffa

Defendant : Ms C L Donald

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Staffa Lawyers

Defendant : Lavan Legal

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

Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commission of Taxation [2001] HCA 26; (2001) 179 ALR 406
Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources [No 5] [2008] WASCA 181
EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1983] Ch 59
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 3] [2009] WASC 355
Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 5] [2010] WASC 124
Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 6] [2010] WASC 228
Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129

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 Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 6]

Details

AGLC: Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 6] [2010] WASC 228 (S)
Case: [2010] WASC 228 (S)
Decision Date: 30 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Staley v Pivot Group Pty Ltd [No 6] involved a dispute where the defendant, Pivot Group Pty Ltd, sought indemnity costs for the trial of the case. The plaintiff, Staley, had originally brought an action against Pivot Group Pty Ltd. Pivot Group Pty Ltd successfully defended the action and subsequently applied for indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's conduct warranted an order for indemnity costs. Pivot Group Pty Ltd contended that the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, including the manner in which the case was prosecuted, justified such an order. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's actions were unreasonable to the extent that it warranted the imposition of indemnity costs on the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was indeed unreasonable. The court noted that the plaintiff had persisted with the action despite clear indications that it had no merit and had acted in a manner that was vexatious and oppressive. Consequently, the court granted Pivot Group Pty Ltd's application for indemnity costs, ordering that the costs of the action be paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis. This means that the plaintiff was liable for all costs associated with the trial, not just the costs incurred by the defendant in defending the action.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders for costs of action on indemnity 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.