ACQ v Cook (No 2); Aircair Moree v Cook (No 2); Cook v Country Energy (No 2); Country Energy v Cook (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 306

ACQ v Cook (No 2); Aircair Moree v Cook (No 2); Cook v Country Energy (No 2); Country Energy v Cook (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 306

It was reasonable and proper for Mr Cook to join NorthPower because ACQ and Aircair had already joined NorthPower by cross-claim and alleged that NorthPower caused Mr Cook's injuries by negligence. The claims were substantially connected because they concerned the same damage suffered in the same incident, notwithstanding that ACQ and Aircair were sued under statute and NorthPower in tort. The combined effect of ACQ and Aircair's denials of liability and their cross-claims against NorthPower justified shifting NorthPower's costs to ACQ and Aircair. A Sanderson Order was selected because it was more direct and administratively cleaner than a Bullock Order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders as to Costs / After Disposition of the Substance of Four Appeals; on Written Submissions
Outcome
Sanderson orders made requiring ACQ and Aircair to pay NorthPower's costs in the disputed appeals and below; agreed costs orders also made in the other appeals.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'joinder of Successful Defendant' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'personal Injury'] ['bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'joinder of Successful Defendant' 'indemnity Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders as to Costs / After Disposition of the Substance of Four Appeals; on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether ACQ and Aircair, or Aircair alone, should ultimately bear NorthPower's costs pursuant to a Bullock Order or a Sanderson Order." 'Whether it was reasonable and proper for Mr Cook to have joined NorthPower to the proceedings.' "Whether there was a substantial connection between Mr Cook's claims against ACQ, Aircair and NorthPower despite the claims arising under statute and in tort." "Whether the conduct of ACQ and Aircair made it fair to impose liability on them for NorthPower's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable and proper for Mr Cook to join NorthPower because ACQ and Aircair had already joined NorthPower by cross-claim and alleged that NorthPower caused Mr Cook's injuries by negligence. The claims were substantially connected because they concerned the same damage suffered in the same incident, notwithstanding that ACQ and Aircair were sued under statute and NorthPower in tort. The combined effect of ACQ and Aircair's denials of liability and their cross-claims against NorthPower justified shifting NorthPower's costs to ACQ and Aircair. A Sanderson Order was selected because it was more direct and administratively cleaner than a Bullock Order.

Court Disposition

Sanderson orders made requiring ACQ and Aircair to pay NorthPower's costs in the disputed appeals and below; agreed costs orders also made in the other appeals.

Orders

  • ['In Appeal 40302/07, ACQ to pay the costs of NorthPower of the appeal.' 'In Appeal 40302/07, ACQ to pay the costs of Mr Cook of the appeal on an indemnity basis.' 'In Appeal 40303/07, Aircair to pay the costs of NorthPower of the appeal.' 'In Appeal 40303/07, Aircair to pay the costs of Mr Cook of the appeal on an...