Edwards and Ors v Endeavour Energy and Others; Precision Helicopters Pty Limited v Endeavour Energy and Ors; Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Limited and Anor (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 68

Edwards and Ors v Endeavour Energy and Others; Precision Helicopters Pty Limited v Endeavour Energy and Ors; Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Limited and Anor (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 68

Although Endeavour obtained judgment against Precision in the 2010 Proceedings, the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings substantially overlapped and Precision was the overall successful party on the issues litigated between Precision and Endeavour. Endeavour failed on the aviation and contractual issues and achieved only limited success on the helmet issue and on the passenger issue. Fairness therefore required a single apportioned costs order that Endeavour pay 90% of Precision's costs of the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings. A temporary stay was justified because the balance of convenience favoured avoiding potentially complex costs assessment pending Endeavour's intended appeal, with continuation to be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident in Three Proceedings Heard Together / Consequential Orders After Primary Judgment, Including Costs and Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Consequential orders made; Precision awarded 90% of its costs against Endeavour in the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings; orders temporarily stayed pending Endeavour filing and serving a Notice of Appeal, excluding directions orders in the 2008 Proceedings.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'single Costs Order Across Proceedings Heard Together' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'contractual Indemnity' 's.151 Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 Indemnity']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'civil Procedure' 'aviation' 'workers Compensation Indemnity' 'contractual Indemnity'] ['consequential Orders' 'single Costs Order Across Proceedings Heard Together' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'contractual Indemnity' 's.151 Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 Indemnity']

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

Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident in Three Proceedings Heard Together / Consequential Orders After Primary Judgment, Including Costs and Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made as between Precision and Endeavour in the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings.' 'Whether a single overall costs order should be made in respect of the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings.' "Whether Precision's contractual indemnity from Endeavour extended to any liability of Precision to Endeavour for costs in the 2010 Proceedings." "Whether orders in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 Proceedings should be stayed pending Endeavour's foreshadowed appeal." 'Whether the 2008 Proceedings should be adjourned for directions concerning damages assessment for Connor Edwards and Rubyanna Edwards.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Endeavour obtained judgment against Precision in the 2010 Proceedings, the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings substantially overlapped and Precision was the overall successful party on the issues litigated between Precision and Endeavour. Endeavour failed on the aviation and contractual issues and achieved only limited success on the helmet issue and on the passenger issue. Fairness therefore required a single apportioned costs order that Endeavour pay 90% of Precision's costs of the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings. A temporary stay was justified because the balance of convenience favoured avoiding potentially complex costs assessment pending Endeavour's intended appeal, with continuation to be...

Court Disposition

Consequential orders made; Precision awarded 90% of its costs against Endeavour in the 2009 and 2010 Proceedings; orders temporarily stayed pending Endeavour filing and serving a Notice of Appeal, excluding directions orders in the 2008 Proceedings.

Orders

  • ['In the 2008 Proceedings, verdict for Telstra in the action as against Connor Edwards and Rubyanna Edwards.' 'In the 2008 Proceedings, proceedings listed for directions before Johnson J at 2.00 pm on 29 August 2014.' "In the 2008 Proceedings, liberty to apply on two days' notice." "In the 2008 Proceedings,...