Wentworth v Rogers [2000] NSWCA 365

Wentworth v Rogers [2000] NSWCA 365

The Court confirmed its earlier decision because, when the 5 May 1995 orders were read with the existing 6 March 1987 order, they gave the claimant the general costs of her action and the costs of the second trial but not the costs of the first trial. The first-trial costs were to abide the result of the second trial, which remained unknown because the malicious prosecution cross-claim had not been retried or otherwise finally determined. The material relied on by the claimant did not show any inconsistency requiring the decision to be reopened, and no basis was shown to reopen the refusal concerning certification for two counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion to Review Order Refusing Leave to Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal Motion Seeking to Set Aside Dismissal of Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The claimant's motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'construction of Court Orders' 'costs of Trials and Cross Claims' 'judicial Disqualification' 'certification for Two Counsel']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'construction of Court Orders' 'costs of Trials and Cross Claims' 'judicial Disqualification' 'certification for Two Counsel']

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

Motion to Review Order Refusing Leave to Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal Motion Seeking to Set Aside Dismissal of Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the claimant's motion should reopen or set aside the Court's 7 September 1999 dismissal of her summons for leave to appeal." "Whether prior statements by judges or earlier reasons were inconsistent with the Court's construction of the orders made on 5 May 1995 and 6 March 1987 concerning costs of the first trial." 'Whether Handley JA should disqualify himself from the further hearing of the matter.' "Whether Hulme J's refusal to certify for two counsel in respect of certain interlocutory applications justified reopening the earlier decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court confirmed its earlier decision because, when the 5 May 1995 orders were read with the existing 6 March 1987 order, they gave the claimant the general costs of her action and the costs of the second trial but not the costs of the first trial. The first-trial costs were to abide the result of the second trial, which remained unknown because the malicious prosecution cross-claim had not been retried or otherwise finally determined. The material relied on by the claimant did not show any inconsistency requiring the decision to be reopened, and no basis was shown to reopen the refusal concerning certification for two counsel.

Court Disposition

The claimant's motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The claimant's motion of 9 September 1998 is dismissed."]