Singh v The State of New South Wales (Department of Corrective Services and Anor [2008] NSWIRComm 206

Singh v The State of New South Wales (Department of Corrective Services and Anor [2008] NSWIRComm 206

The summons was dismissed as against the second respondent because the applicant did not oppose the notice of motion. Indemnity costs were ordered from 28 October 2008 because, had the applicant made his position clear before the hearing, the second respondent would not have incurred the expense of the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair, Harsh or Unconscionable Contract, Arrangement or Collateral Arrangement / Interlocutory Judgment on the Second Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal of the Proceedings Against Him
Outcome
Notice of motion granted; proceedings dismissed as against the second respondent, with costs against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract Application' 'interlocutory Notice of Motion' 'adjournment Application' 'dismissal Against Second Respondent' 'indemnity Costs']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['unfair Contract Application' 'interlocutory Notice of Motion' 'adjournment Application' 'dismissal Against Second Respondent' 'indemnity 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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair, Harsh or Unconscionable Contract, Arrangement or Collateral Arrangement / Interlocutory Judgment on the Second Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal of the Proceedings Against Him

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing of the second respondent's notice of motion should be adjourned to enable execution of a Deed of Release." 'Whether the summons should be dismissed as against the second respondent.' "Whether the applicant should pay the second respondent's costs, including indemnity costs for the hearing of the notice of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed as against the second respondent because the applicant did not oppose the notice of motion. Indemnity costs were ordered from 28 October 2008 because, had the applicant made his position clear before the hearing, the second respondent would not have incurred the expense of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted; proceedings dismissed as against the second respondent, with costs against the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Pt 12, r 82(1) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996, the summons for relief filed on 29 August 2007 and amended on 6 November 2007 is dismissed, as against the second respondent.' "The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the notice...