Ingrid Margaret Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Natalee Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; ; Jay Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; ; South West Helicopters Pty Limited and anor. v Essential Energy (formerly Country Energy); Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 507

Ingrid Margaret Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Natalee Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; ; Jay Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; ; South West Helicopters Pty Limited and anor. v Essential Energy (formerly Country Energy); Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 507

Because the cross-claims and proceedings raised overlapping issues determined largely on one body of evidence, no separate costs orders should be made on most cross-claims. Ingrid, Natalee and Jay were successful and should receive costs apportioned according to the Court's apportionment of responsibility, with South West paying 70%, the Council 20%, and EE 10%. The Council was successful in its s. 151Z proceedings against South West and should receive costs, including costs under r. 42.8(2) for proving facts disputed after notices to admit. Although South West and CC recovered damages against EE, and South West recovered some damages on a third cross-claim, the damages recovered were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs and Form of Final Orders in Multiple Common Law Proceedings / Written Submissions After Liability, Damages and Apportionment Judgments
Outcome
The parties were directed to bring in Short Minutes reflecting the conclusions reached in the judgment.
Legal Topics
['form of Final Orders' 'apportionment of Costs' 'cross Claims' 'damages Substantially Less Than Claimed' 'costs Following the Event' 's. 151 Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw)' 'apportionable Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'civil Liability'] ['form of Final Orders' 'apportionment of Costs' 'cross Claims' 'damages Substantially Less Than Claimed' 'costs Following the Event' 's. 151 Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw)' 'apportionable Claims']

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 and Form of Final Orders in Multiple Common Law Proceedings / Written Submissions After Liability, Damages and Apportionment Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What final orders should be made where the parties could not agree on their form.' 'How judgments and cross-claim outcomes should be expressed across the multiple proceedings.' 'Whether costs should follow the event for Ingrid, Natalee and Jay and how those costs should be apportioned among South West, the Council and EE.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against, or withheld from, parties who recovered only minimal damages after pursuing substantially larger claims.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in respect of the various cross-claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the cross-claims and proceedings raised overlapping issues determined largely on one body of evidence, no separate costs orders should be made on most cross-claims. Ingrid, Natalee and Jay were successful and should receive costs apportioned according to the Court's apportionment of responsibility, with South West paying 70%, the Council 20%, and EE 10%. The Council was successful in its s. 151Z proceedings against South West and should receive costs, including costs under r. 42.8(2) for proving facts disputed after notices to admit. Although South West and CC recovered damages against EE, and South West recovered some damages on a third cross-claim, the damages recovered were...

Court Disposition

The parties were directed to bring in Short Minutes reflecting the conclusions reached in the judgment.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to bring in Short Minutes reflecting the conclusions reached in this judgment by 5:00pm on Thursday 23 June 2016.']