Gough & Gilmour Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors v Caterpillar of Australia Ltd and Anor (No. 16) [2005] NSWIRComm 8

Gough & Gilmour Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors v Caterpillar of Australia Ltd and Anor (No. 16) [2005] NSWIRComm 8

The application to have costs for the first phase of proceedings determined and ordered payable forthwith was refused because proceedings were regarded as one proceeding, not discrete; the potential for overlap or connection relevant to costs existed; and no compelling justification was found to depart from the usual rule that costs be determined at the conclusion of the entire matter. The Court wished to preserve discretion to apportion costs overall after final determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 – Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment—application for Determination of Costs Prior to Final Completion Refused
Outcome
Application refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'unfair Contracts' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'case Management' 'separate Determination of Costs']
['industrial Law'] ['costs' 'unfair Contracts' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'case Management' 'separate Determination of 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 Industrial Relations Act 1996 – Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment—application for Determination of Costs Prior to Final Completion Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should hear and determine an application for costs in relation to the first phase of proceedings prior to completion of the entire proceedings' 'Whether costs orders can or should be made forthwith in the interests of justice where part of a split proceeding is completed']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to have costs for the first phase of proceedings determined and ordered payable forthwith was refused because proceedings were regarded as one proceeding, not discrete; the potential for overlap or connection relevant to costs existed; and no compelling justification was found to depart from the usual rule that costs be determined at the conclusion of the entire matter. The Court wished to preserve discretion to apportion costs overall after final determination.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application by the applicants that the Court hear and determine an application for the costs of the first phase of the proceedings prior to the commencement of the second phase of the proceedings is refused.' 'Costs are reserved.']