Golden West Refining Corporation Ltd v Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 525

Golden West Refining Corporation Ltd v Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 525

Interest should be awarded, but not for the unexplained period of delay before proceedings were commenced. It was reasonable to allow interest from 22 May 1990, being 14 days after the first demand for payment, to 31 December 1990, by which time proceedings could reasonably have been instituted, and again from 5 June 1992, when the proceedings were instituted, to judgment, because there was no undue delay after commencement. The applicant's failure on Sale of Goods Act claims did not justify reducing its costs because those issues did not take up a considerable part of the trial and substantially overlapped with other evidence; previous orders or agreements dealt with costs thrown away by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Judgment for Damages, Interest on Damages and Costs / Post Judgment Determination of Interest and Costs Following Reasons and Orders Made on 5 January 1995
Outcome
Interest and costs ordered in favour of the applicant; the second respondent ordered to indemnify the first respondent and to pay the first respondent's costs of the cross-claims.
Legal Topics
['pre Judgment Interest Under S.51 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act' 'discretion to Deny or Limit Interest Because of Delay' 'costs of Successful Applicant Where Some Claims Failed' 'indemnity Costs Between Respondents on Cross Claims']

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

Practice and Procedure Judgment for Damages, Interest on Damages and Costs / Post Judgment Determination of Interest and Costs Following Reasons and Orders Made on 5 January 1995

  1. 1 ['For what period interest should be allowed on the damages judgment of $146,601.33.' 'Whether delay before commencement of proceedings justified denying or limiting interest.' "Whether the applicant's unsuccessful Sale of Goods Act claims or amendments during trial should deprive it of part of its costs." 'Whether the first respondent should be indemnified by the second respondent for costs payable to the applicant and receive costs on the cross-claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interest should be awarded, but not for the unexplained period of delay before proceedings were commenced. It was reasonable to allow interest from 22 May 1990, being 14 days after the first demand for payment, to 31 December 1990, by which time proceedings could reasonably have been instituted, and again from 5 June 1992, when the proceedings were instituted, to judgment, because there was no undue delay after commencement. The applicant's failure on Sale of Goods Act claims did not justify reducing its costs because those issues did not take up a considerable part of the trial and substantially overlapped with other evidence; previous orders or agreements dealt with costs thrown away by...

Court Disposition

Interest and costs ordered in favour of the applicant; the second respondent ordered to indemnify the first respondent and to pay the first respondent's costs of the cross-claims.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent and the second respondent pay to the applicant interest on the sum of $146,601.33 calculated in respect of the period 22 May 1990 to 31 December 1990, both dates inclusive, and 5 June 1992 to 5 January 1995, both dates inclusive.' 'Such interest is to be calculated at the rates fixed from time...