Total Grain Systems Pty Ltd v T J Sampson Pty Ltd
[2012] WASC 232 (S)
•27 JULY 2012
TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD -v- T J SAMPSON PTY LTD [2012] WASC 232 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 232 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2114/2010 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 27/07/12 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Costs order made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD T J SAMPSON PTY LTD HARBERGER'S FARM SUPPLIES PTY LTD KEITH ANDREW HARBERGER TIMMOTHY MICHAEL PFEIFFER STEVEN WILLIAMS |
Catchwords: | Costs after unsuccessful appeal |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
T J SAMPSON PTY LTD
Defendant
(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
T J SAMPSON PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
TOTAL GRAIN SYSTEMS PTY LTD
First Defendant
HARBERGER'S FARM SUPPLIES PTY LTD
Second Defendant
KEITH ANDREW HARBERGER
Third Defendant
TIMMOTHY MICHAEL PFEIFFER
Fourth Defendant
- STEVEN WILLIAMS
Fifth Defendant
(BY COUNTERCLAIM)
Catchwords:
Costs after unsuccessful appeal
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Costs order made
Category: B
Representation:
Original Action
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr B E S Lauri
Defendant : Mr S T Hong
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Rouphael & Associates
Defendant : Solomon Brothers
Counterclaim
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Ms T H Hong
First Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie
Second Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie
Third Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie
Fourth Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie
Fifth Defendant : Mr B E S Laurie
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
First Defendant : Rouphael & Associates
Second Defendant : Rouphael & Associates
Third Defendant : Rouphael & Associates
Fourth Defendant : Rouphael & Associates
Fifth Defendant : Rouphael & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 28 June 2012, I published reasons dismissing the defendants' appeal against a registrar's refusal to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim. There remains outstanding the question of costs on the appeal. These reasons deal with that issue.
2 The appeal was originally listed for hearing on 25 January 2012. The court gave written notice dated 7 December 2011 of that listing. When the matter was called on, there was no appearance for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be heard at a later date.
3 It would appear there was some confusion about who was representing the plaintiffs at the time the notice was issued. Be that as it may, the defendants were not at fault and counsel was ready to argue the matter. With the adjournment, costs were necessarily wasted and those costs should be paid by the plaintiffs.
4 That leaves the question of who should be responsible for the costs of the appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful. It seems to me there is no reason to deviate from the general rule costs follow the event. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants there ought either be no order for costs or costs should be in the cause. In my view, there is no justification for making either of those two orders.
5 Accordingly, the order will be the defendants pay the plaintiffs costs of the appeal (excluding the costs of the adjournment on 25 January 2012), such costs to be taxed if not agreed.
6 In detailed written submissions, counsel for the defendants argued I should set aside the costs order made by Registrar Davies at the initial hearing. In my view, there is no justification for interfering with the learned registrar's decision. I dismissed the defendants' appeal from that decision. To, in some way, now tinker with the costs order made by the registrar would be inappropriate, if not improper. In any event, it is my view the learned registrar came to the correct conclusion in relation to costs and I see no justification for interfering with her decision.
7 The parties should confer and bring in a minute which reflects the original decision and the decision with respect to costs. If any argument remains, the matter can be listed for a short hearing in general chambers.
0
1
1