Wallace v Shorescape Holdings Pty Ltd - [2010] WADC 114 (S)

WALLACE -v- SHORESCAPE HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2010] WADC 114 (S)

Last Update: 20/01/2011

WALLACE -v- SHORESCAPE HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2010] WADC 114 (S)
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WADC 114 (S)
Case No:	CIV:372/2008	Heard:	17 DECEMBER 2010
Coram:	STAUDE DCJ	Delivered:	06/08/2010
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	13/01/2011
No of Pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiffs ordered to pay 50% of defendants' costs
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	CLINTON JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER WALLACE ROSARIA WALLACE SHORESCAPE HOLDINGS PTY LTD PARKRIDGE GROUP PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs General rule that successful party entitled to costs Whether departure from general rule warranted Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 1
Case References:	Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S) McConnell v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Prue v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (unreported, WASC, 10 December 1992, Library No 920670) Townsend & Ors v Collova & Ors [2005] WASC 4 (S)

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WALLACE -v- SHORESCAPE HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2010] WADC 114 (S) CORAM : STAUDE DCJ HEARD : 17 DECEMBER 2010 DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 13 JANUARY 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 372 of 2008 BETWEEN : CLINTON JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER WALLACE

ROSARIA WALLACE

Plaintiffs

AND

SHORESCAPE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

First Defendant

PARKRIDGE GROUP PTY LTD

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - General rule that successful party entitled to costs - Whether departure from general rule warranted - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 1

Result:

Plaintiffs ordered to pay 50% of defendants' costs

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr A Metaxas

First Defendant : Mr A J Musikanth

Second Defendant : Mr C M Slater

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Metaxas & Hager

First Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Second Defendant : Wojtowicz Kelly

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

Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S)
McConnell v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Prue v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (unreported, WASC, 10 December 1992, Library No 920670)
Townsend & Ors v Collova & Ors [2005] WASC 4 (S)

(Page 3)

1 STAUDE DCJ: On 6 August 2010 I gave judgment for the defendants in this matter, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practice Act 1974 (Cth), alternatively s 79 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA). I found that the defendants had each engaged in conduct which was misleading or deceptive by representing two residential lots of a subdivision development in Eaton to be duplex.

2 I was not, however, satisfied that the plaintiffs had suffered any loss and damage because there was no proof that any application for approval of a duplex development on the lots would not have been successful or would have so little chance of success as to have no real value. My decision in this respect was based…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wallace v Shorescape Holdings 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: [2010] WADC 114 (S)
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Wallace, sought a declaration from the court that certain financial statements prepared by the defendant, Shorescape Holdings Pty Ltd, were misleading and false. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs claimed that the financial statements provided by the defendants contained misleading information, which led to financial losses for the plaintiffs. The defendants, in turn, argued that the financial statements were accurate and that they had acted with due care and diligence in their preparation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the general rule that the successful party in a legal dispute is entitled to costs should be departed from. The court needed to determine whether the unique circumstances of this case warranted a departure from this general rule. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants should bear the full costs of the litigation due to the nature of the misleading information. The defendants contended that they should only be liable for a portion of the costs, as they were ultimately successful in defending the allegations against them.

The court held that the general rule of costs in litigation should not be departed from in this case. The court found that the defendants had acted with due care and diligence in preparing the financial statements and that the plaintiffs' claims were ultimately unsuccessful. As such, the court ordered that the plaintiffs bear 50% of the defendants' costs. The court reasoned that this outcome was appropriate given the facts of the case and the defendants' successful defence of the allegations. The court emphasised that each case must be considered on its own merits when determining the appropriate allocation of costs.

The court's final order was that the plaintiffs, Wallace, were to pay 50% of the defendants' costs. The court found that this outcome was appropriate given the unique circumstances of the case and the defendants' successful defence of the allegations. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate allocation of costs in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiffs ordered to pay 50% of defendants' 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.