Goodrich Aerospace Pty Limited v Arsic (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 119

Goodrich Aerospace Pty Limited v Arsic (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 119

The trial costs order should be amended to preserve interlocutory costs orders because that amendment was sought by the respondent and not contested by the appellant. The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal because the appellant succeeded on the grounds it raised, the failure-to-cross-examine point was part of the challenge to factual findings, and the grounds on which the appellant failed played only a very minor part in the appeal, leaving no reason to depart from the ordinary costs rule.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Judgment on Costs / Court of Appeal, on Written Submissions After Liberty to Apply in Relation to Costs Order
Outcome
Order (4) of the orders made on 18 July 2006 amended; otherwise the proposed orders stand; respondent to pay the costs of the argument in relation to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs of Trial' 'interlocutory Costs Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'retrial']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['costs of Trial' 'interlocutory Costs Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'retrial']

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

Judgment on Costs / Court of Appeal, on Written Submissions After Liberty to Apply in Relation to Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the order that the costs of the trial are costs in the cause should be amended to preserve interlocutory costs orders made below in the respondent's favour." 'Whether the costs of the appeal should be paid by the respondent or should abide the outcome of the retrial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial costs order should be amended to preserve interlocutory costs orders because that amendment was sought by the respondent and not contested by the appellant. The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal because the appellant succeeded on the grounds it raised, the failure-to-cross-examine point was part of the challenge to factual findings, and the grounds on which the appellant failed played only a very minor part in the appeal, leaving no reason to depart from the ordinary costs rule.

Court Disposition

Order (4) of the orders made on 18 July 2006 amended; otherwise the proposed orders stand; respondent to pay the costs of the argument in relation to costs.

Orders

  • ['Order (4) of the orders made on 18 July 2006 be amended by adding the following words to the order in question: "save to the extent of any interlocutory costs orders".' 'Otherwise the orders proposed stand.' 'The respondent to pay the costs of the argument in relation to the issue of costs.']