Selman v Sweet (No 2) [2003] NSWIRComm 53
The applicants' interlocutory motion was not shown to be complete in itself or distinguishable from the normal run of interlocutory applications, so there was no reason to depart from the normal course of reserving costs to be determined as part of the costs of the cause in the section 106 proceedings.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment Re Costs Following Refusal of Applicants' Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['unfair Contract' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'costs Reserved' 'costs of Motion']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment Re Costs Following Refusal of Applicants' Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the costs of the applicants' unsuccessful interlocutory motion should be determined forthwith or reserved to the final determination of the section 106 proceedings." 'Whether the interlocutory motion was a proceeding complete in itself or part of the section 106 proceedings.']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants' interlocutory motion was not shown to be complete in itself or distinguishable from the normal run of interlocutory applications, so there was no reason to depart from the normal course of reserving costs to be determined as part of the costs of the cause in the section 106 proceedings.
Court Disposition
Costs reserved.
Orders
- ["The costs of the applicants' motion are reserved."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment