Delarc Pty. Ltd. v. Corporate Architecture Joinery Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2001] NSWSC 83

Delarc Pty. Ltd. v. Corporate Architecture Joinery Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2001] NSWSC 83

A ground was shown for removal because the plaintiff sought relief, including an account of profits, outside the District Court's jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff had commenced in the District Court and sought removal, it was liable for costs necessarily thrown away by that commencement and transfer. However, costs relating to District Court interlocutory steps and the vacation of the hearing date were to be costs in the proceedings, given the history of particulars and the defendants' unreasonable conduct concerning production of documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Transfer Proceedings From the District Court to the Supreme Court / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted; proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court and costs and directions orders made.
Legal Topics
['transfer From Supreme Court to District Court' 'vacation of Hearing' 'costs Thrown Away' 'interlocutory Costs']
['courts' 'procedure' 'costs'] ['transfer From Supreme Court to District Court' 'vacation of Hearing' 'costs Thrown Away' 'interlocutory 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 to Transfer Proceedings From the District Court to the Supreme Court / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether proceedings should be removed from the District Court to the Supreme Court because relief sought, including an account of profits, was outside the District Court's jurisdiction." 'Whether the plaintiff should pay costs thrown away by commencement in the District Court and removal to the Supreme Court.' 'Whether costs thrown away by the vacation of the District Court hearing date and other interlocutory matters should be paid by the plaintiff or be costs in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

A ground was shown for removal because the plaintiff sought relief, including an account of profits, outside the District Court's jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff had commenced in the District Court and sought removal, it was liable for costs necessarily thrown away by that commencement and transfer. However, costs relating to District Court interlocutory steps and the vacation of the hearing date were to be costs in the proceedings, given the history of particulars and the defendants' unreasonable conduct concerning production of documents.

Court Disposition

Application granted; proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court and costs and directions orders made.

Orders

  • ['Order 1(a) in the Summons made.' 'The Registrar of this Court is directed to notify the District Court forthwith of that order.' 'Costs necessarily thrown away by reason of the proceedings being commenced in the District Court and transferred to the Supreme Court are to be paid by the plaintiff.' 'Otherwise the...