HIH Workers Compensation (NSW) Pty Limited v GIO General Limited & GIO Workers Compensation [2001] NSWCC 48

HIH Workers Compensation (NSW) Pty Limited v GIO General Limited & GIO Workers Compensation [2001] NSWCC 48

Each party should bear its own costs of the withdrawn notice of motion because, until 29 February 2000, the respondent was entitled to address issues concerning the conduct of party representatives in Bega. In Matter No 582 of 2000, the first respondent should pay the applicant's costs because the proceedings were correctly brought, the Court had jurisdiction, the factual findings supported the order, and the first respondent contested the matter. Interest should be awarded only from 29 February 2000 because before that date the respondent was entitled to dispute liability on additional grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Contribution Proceedings / Post Judgment Determination of Outstanding Orders, Costs and Interest
Outcome
Orders made on outstanding issues; the notice of motion was withdrawn and dismissed; the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs in Matter No 582 of 2000 and interest on $90,000 from 29 February 2000 until payment.
Legal Topics
['contribution' 'apportionment Under S 22 and S 22 a of the Workers Compensation Act' 'costs' 'interest Under S 109']
['workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contribution' 'apportionment Under S 22 and S 22 a of the Workers Compensation Act' 'costs' 'interest Under S 109']

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

Workers Compensation Contribution Proceedings / Post Judgment Determination of Outstanding Orders, Costs and Interest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What order should be made on the notice of motion of 19 February 1999 in Matter No 19420 of 1997 after its withdrawal and dismissal.' 'What costs order should be made in respect of the notice of motion.' "Whether the first respondent should pay the applicant's costs in Matter No 582 of 2000." 'Whether the applicant should be awarded interest under s 109, and from what date.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each party should bear its own costs of the withdrawn notice of motion because, until 29 February 2000, the respondent was entitled to address issues concerning the conduct of party representatives in Bega. In Matter No 582 of 2000, the first respondent should pay the applicant's costs because the proceedings were correctly brought, the Court had jurisdiction, the factual findings supported the order, and the first respondent contested the matter. Interest should be awarded only from 29 February 2000 because before that date the respondent was entitled to dispute liability on additional grounds.

Court Disposition

Orders made on outstanding issues; the notice of motion was withdrawn and dismissed; the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs in Matter No 582 of 2000 and interest on $90,000 from 29 February 2000 until payment.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled by Campbell CJ and placed with the papers.' "On Mr Batten's application, the notice of motion of 19 February 1999 in Matter No 19420 of 1997 is withdrawn and dismissed." 'Each party is to pay its own costs of the notice of motion.' 'The first...