Stavar v Caltex Refineries (Qld)Pty Ltd No 3 [2008] NSWDDT 27

Stavar v Caltex Refineries (Qld)Pty Ltd No 3 [2008] NSWDDT 27

The application failed because the first defendant's success concerned an issue of law about duty of care rather than a fact established by evidence provided in replies, the relevant replies contained assertions rather than evidence, and the two-period issue was not the principal or only ground on which the first defendant disputed liability. No fact or circumstance warranted an order that the second to fifth defendants pay the first defendant's costs for litigating the existence of a duty of care in the first and second periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ruling on First Defendant's Application for Costs After Orders Requiring the First Defendant to Pay the Plaintiff's Costs
Outcome
The first defendant's application for an order that the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants pay its costs was refused, and the first defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['costs Between Defendants' 'indemnity Costs' 'contributions Assessment' 'mediation' 'asbestos Exposure' 'duty of Care']
['costs' 'dust Diseases Litigation' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Between Defendants' 'indemnity Costs' 'contributions Assessment' 'mediation' 'asbestos Exposure' 'duty of Care']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ruling on First Defendant's Application for Costs After Orders Requiring the First Defendant to Pay the Plaintiff's Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether cl 53 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007 required the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants to pay the first defendant's costs on issues on which the first defendant succeeded against the plaintiff." "Whether the first defendant's replies and the other defendants' replies provided evidence, rather than assertions, sufficient to engage cl 53." 'Whether the issues concerning asbestos exposure during the first and second periods were the principal or only ground on which the first defendant disputed liability.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the first defendant's success concerned an issue of law about duty of care rather than a fact established by evidence provided in replies, the relevant replies contained assertions rather than evidence, and the two-period issue was not the principal or only ground on which the first defendant disputed liability. No fact or circumstance warranted an order that the second to fifth defendants pay the first defendant's costs for litigating the existence of a duty of care in the first and second periods.

Court Disposition

The first defendant's application for an order that the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants pay its costs was refused, and the first defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant will pay the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants' costs of this application as agreed or assessed."]