Bluescope Steel Limited v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWDDT 2

Bluescope Steel Limited v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWDDT 2

Allianz was entitled to its costs of the 2009 proceedings because BlueScope commenced and continued those proceedings without jurisdiction for a considerable period, substantial work was undertaken, and no reason was shown to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. Any overlap with the costs orders in the 2006 proceedings could be addressed on costs assessment and would not permit Allianz to double-dip.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed by Allianz on 3 June 2015
Outcome
Allianz's costs application was granted.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'proceedings Commenced Without Jurisdiction' 'overlap Between Costs Orders in Related Proceedings' 'party/party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'proceedings Commenced Without Jurisdiction' 'overlap Between Costs Orders in Related Proceedings' 'party/party 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

Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed by Allianz on 3 June 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made in respect of the 2009 proceedings.' 'Whether the overlap between work undertaken in the 2009 proceedings and work later utilised in the 2006 proceedings required an order other than costs following the event.' "Whether two costs orders in Allianz's favour could permit double recovery."]

Ratio Decidendi

Allianz was entitled to its costs of the 2009 proceedings because BlueScope commenced and continued those proceedings without jurisdiction for a considerable period, substantial work was undertaken, and no reason was shown to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. Any overlap with the costs orders in the 2006 proceedings could be addressed on costs assessment and would not permit Allianz to double-dip.

Court Disposition

Allianz's costs application was granted.

Orders

  • ['Order made in accordance with prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion filed by Allianz on 3 June 2015.' 'Allianz is to have its costs of the 2009 proceedings.']