Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 64
Hearing dates: 23 March 2017
Decision date: 23 March 2017
Before: McColl JA at [1], [37];
Basten JA at [2];
Ward JA at [38]
Decision:

(1)   Refuse leave to appeal from the judgment and orders made by Stevenson J in the Equity Division on 5 July 2016.

 

(2)   Order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court on an indemnity basis.

 (3)   Direct the respondent to make such application as it may be advised in relation to seeking an order for costs against any legal representative of the applicant, such application to be made on or before 29 March 2017, by notice of motion, accompanied by affidavit(s) and written submissions.
Catchwords:

APPEAL – leave to appeal – challenge to validity of costs certificate – whether final or interlocutory order – whether order relating to costs – whether leave to appeal required under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(e) or (q)

 

APPEAL – re-litigation of issue determined in previous appeal – issue not determinative of earlier appeal – whether sufficient basis for contention that earlier reasoning was erroneous

  JUDGMENT AND ORDERS – costs certificate – costs order forming basis of assessment set aside – costs order reinstated on appeal – whether original costs certificate valid
Legislation Cited: Constitution (Cth), s 92
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.4
Cases Cited: Blakey v Latham [1889] 43 Ch D 23
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220
Derrawee Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v McConochie [1995] NSWCA 123
El-Saeidy v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCA 172
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad (2012) 247 CLR 31; [2012] HCA 44
James v The Commonwealth (1935) 52 CLR 570
Lord Sanchar’s Case (1613) 9 Co Rep 117a; 77 ER 902
R v Drury (1849) 3 Car & K 190; 175 ER 516
Re Culleton (No 2) [2017] HCA 4
Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 80
Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 477
Texts Cited: Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 21st ed (1893), pp 226, 227
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Keysar Trad (Applicant)
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A G Rogers (Applicant)
Mr M Richardson (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mitry Lawyers (Applicants)
Banki Haddock Fiora (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/228048
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Date of Decision:
5 July 2016
Before:
Stevenson J
File Number(s):
2016/203503

Judgment

  1. McCOLL JA: Justice Basten will deliver the first reasons.

  2. BASTEN JA: In 2006, the applicant, Keysar Trad, commenced proceedings for defamation against the respondent, Harbour Radio Pty Ltd. In 2009, the trial judge, McClellan CJ at CL, dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in part on an indemnity basis. Harbour Radio sought an assessment of its costs.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] NSWCA 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trad (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from orders made by Stevenson J in the Equity Division on 5 July 2016, which concerned a costs certificate. Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (the respondent) opposed the application. The dispute centred on the validity of the costs certificate, which was issued following an earlier appeal where the original costs order forming its basis had been set aside and then reinstated.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the order of Stevenson J was a final or interlocutory order for the purposes of s 101(2) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), and consequently, whether leave to appeal was necessary. Further, the Court had to consider whether the applicant was attempting to re-litigate an issue already determined in a previous appeal, and if so, whether there was a sufficient basis to contend that the earlier reasoning was erroneous. The central question was the validity of the costs certificate in light of the fluctuating costs orders.

The Court reasoned that the order of Stevenson J was interlocutory, meaning leave to appeal was required. It found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the earlier appeal's reasoning was demonstrably erroneous, particularly as the issue concerning the costs order was not determinative of that earlier appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish grounds for leave to appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of Stevenson J. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal on an indemnity basis. The Court also directed the respondent to make any application it deemed appropriate regarding seeking costs against the applicant's legal representatives by notice of motion, supported by affidavit and submissions, by 29 March 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Refuse leave to appeal from the judgment and orders made by Stevenson J in the Equity Division on 5 July 2016.

(2) Order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court on an indemnity basis.

(3) Direct the respondent to make such application as it may be advised in relation to seeking an order for costs against any legal representative of the applicant, such application to be made on or before 29 March 2017, by notice of motion, accompanied by affidavit(s) and written submissions.

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.