LENNING v ALEXANDER PROUDFOOT COMPANY WORLD HEADQUARTERS [1991] NSWCA 172

LENNING v ALEXANDER PROUDFOOT COMPANY WORLD HEADQUARTERS [1991] NSWCA 172

Each party had succeeded only in part and failed in part, with complex issues heard and determined by consent; therefore, each should bear their own costs and no order for costs is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Raymond Lenning; Claimant: Eckard Solbrandt; Opponent: Alexander Proudfoot Company World Headquarters; Party: Craig Carnahan; Third Party: General Public Relations (GPR)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Following Consent Orders
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Evidence for Foreign Court, Examination of Witnesses, Legal Practitioners Participation, Costs
Civil Procedure Evidence for Foreign Court Examination of Witnesses Legal Practitioners Participation 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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Lenning

Claimant

Eckard Solbrandt

Claimant

Alexander Proudfoot Company World Headquarters

Opponent

Craig Carnahan

Party

General Public Relations (GPR)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Following Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of questions in examination of witnesses requested by a foreign court
  2. 2 Entitlement to legal representation during examination
  3. 3 Participation of foreign attorneys in examination

Ratio Decidendi

Each party had succeeded only in part and failed in part, with complex issues heard and determined by consent; therefore, each should bear their own costs and no order for costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to Mr Lenning
  • Appeal allowed