CITATION: Strata Consolidated (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v Bradshaw & Ors [2000] NSWCA 225 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40324/98 HEARING DATE(S): 17/08/00 JUDGMENT DATE:
17 August 2000PARTIES :
Ian Ronald Ney (Third Opponent)
Strata Consolidated (Australia) Pty Ltd (First Claimant)
A.T.A. Wholesalers Pty Ltd (Second Claimant)
Adtech Corporation Pty Ltd (Third Claimant)
Tartandi Pty Ltd (Fourth Opponent)
Procus Australia Pty Ltd (Fifth Opponent)
Procus West Pty Ltd (Sixth Opponent)
Selmet Pty Ltd (Seventh Opponent)
Sipro Pty Ltd (Eighth Opponent)
Iska Pty Ltd (Ninth Opponent)
Patrick Maguire (Tenth Opponent)
Warren Binney (Eleventh Opponent)
Ross Patterson (Twelfth Opponent)
John Shanahan (Thirteenth Opponent)
Do Yourself A Favour Co Pty Ltd (Fourteenth Opponent)JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 22, 24; Beazley JA at 23; Heydon JA at 1
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Registrar Jupp
COUNSEL: P M Biscoe QC/C A Vindin (Claimants)
P Gray/T L Bartush-Peek (3-14 Opponents)SOLICITORS: J Biady & Associates (Claimants)
Stephen Blanks & Associates (3-14 Opponents)LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 CASES CITED: House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Process Engineering Pty Limited v Derby Meat Processing Company Limited [1977] WAR 145
Wentworth v Wentworth (1994) 35 NSWLR 726DECISION: Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL40324/98
SHELLER JA
BEAZLEY JA
HEYDON JAThursday, 17 August 2000
STRATA CONSOLIDATED (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED & ORS v
EDWARD JOHN BRADSHAW & ORSJUDGMENT
1 HEYDON JA: This is an application by undated notice of motion, apparently filed on 1 June 2000, to review parts of a decision of Registrar Jupp made on 5 May 2000. The parts in question are described in the notice of motion as being those parts which:2 A few days before the day fixed for hearing a volume containing three hundred and fourteen pages called a tender bundle was delivered to the Court. This comprised the notices of motion and affidavits considered by the Registrar, the written submissions to him and transcripts of four days of the hearings before him. Neither the notice of motion nor any other document indicated what was complained of in Registrar Jupp's…
"(a) Awarded to the opponents $55,000 as security for their costs of responding to the claimant's appeal;
(b) Awarded to the opponents 50% of their costs of their application for Security for Costs."
That is an inaccurate description of the relevant part of Registrar Jupp's orders. Paragraph 44 of his reasons for judgment records that the appellants:
"… are to provide security for costs of the appeal … in the sum of $55,000 in respect of the appeal as it is against the 3rd to 14th respondents."
The paragraph concluded:
"50% of the 3rd to 14th respondents' costs of their motion to be their costs in the appeal.”
There is a significant difference between the latter order and the order as described in the notice of motion but nothing in the argument turned on that.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Strata Consolidated (Australia) Pty Ltd v Bradshaw 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2000] NSWCA 225
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Strata Consolidated (Australia) Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent was Bradshaw. The dispute concerned the applicant's entitlement to recover certain costs from the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant was entitled to recover costs incurred in relation to a notice of motion that had been dismissed by the primary judge. Specifically, the court had to determine the proper construction of the relevant court rules concerning the award of costs following the dismissal of interlocutory applications.
The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing the award of costs in interlocutory proceedings. It was held that where a notice of motion is dismissed, the general rule is that the costs of that motion follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party (in this instance, the applicant) is typically ordered to pay the costs of the successful party (the respondent). The court found no exceptional circumstances to depart from this general rule.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant was entitled to recover costs incurred in relation to a notice of motion that had been dismissed by the primary judge. Specifically, the court had to determine the proper construction of the relevant court rules concerning the award of costs following the dismissal of interlocutory applications.
The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing the award of costs in interlocutory proceedings. It was held that where a notice of motion is dismissed, the general rule is that the costs of that motion follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party (in this instance, the applicant) is typically ordered to pay the costs of the successful party (the respondent). The court found no exceptional circumstances to depart from this general rule.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
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.