BlueScope Steel Ltd v Cartwright (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 96

BlueScope Steel Ltd v Cartwright (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 96

The Insurer did not show persuasive grounds for departing from the Court's provisional costs view. Although successful in establishing that its conduct did not cause Mr Cartwright's injuries, it was unsuccessful in seeking to support the primary judge's findings on the scope and breach of BlueScope's duty and causation. The appropriate costs orders were therefore those previously proposed, including that the first and second respondents pay BlueScope's costs of the appeal and that Mr Cartwright pay the costs of BlueScope and the Insurer before Simpson J.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeals Concerning Costs / Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on the Papers, Following Costs Submissions After Reasons Published on 23 February 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed; second respondent's cross-appeal allowed; first respondent's second cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'costs of Appeal' 'cross Appeal Costs' "suitors' Fund Certificate"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'costs of Appeal' 'cross Appeal Costs' "suitors' Fund Certificate"]

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

Appeal and Cross Appeals Concerning Costs / Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on the Papers, Following Costs Submissions After Reasons Published on 23 February 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second respondent should be ordered to pay the successful appellant's costs of the appeal." "Whether the second respondent's support for the primary judge's findings on scope of duty, breach and causation justified a departure from costs following the event." "Whether the second respondent should be ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings before the primary judge."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Insurer did not show persuasive grounds for departing from the Court's provisional costs view. Although successful in establishing that its conduct did not cause Mr Cartwright's injuries, it was unsuccessful in seeking to support the primary judge's findings on the scope and breach of BlueScope's duty and causation. The appropriate costs orders were therefore those previously proposed, including that the first and second respondents pay BlueScope's costs of the appeal and that Mr Cartwright pay the costs of BlueScope and the Insurer before Simpson J.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; second respondent's cross-appeal allowed; first respondent's second cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Cross-appeal (filed by the second respondent) allowed.' 'Second cross-appeal (filed by the first respondent) dismissed.' 'The orders of Simpson J on 15 August 2013 be set aside, and, in lieu thereof, there be a verdict and judgment for the appellant and the second respondent.' 'The first...