Ian King v Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 385

Ian King v Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 385

The applicant's proposed orders gave effect to the September judgment because they were based on the timesheet evidence and claims upheld in the proceedings, while the respondents' attempt to reopen factual disputes about recorded work was too late. The respondents were to pay the applicant's costs, but the applicant was to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the 23 May adjournment because the applicant was not ready to proceed on that day.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Determination of Money and Costs Orders Following Judgment
Outcome
Orders made substantially in favour of the applicant, with respondents jointly and severally liable for the money orders and costs, except that the applicant must pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the adjournment on 23 May.
Legal Topics
['quantification of Money Orders' 'unpaid Work' 'superannuation' 'interest' 'costs Thrown Away']
['industrial Relations' 'employment' 'costs'] ['quantification of Money Orders' 'unpaid Work' 'superannuation' 'interest' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Determination of Money and Costs Orders Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the money orders should be calculated using the applicant's calculations based on the timesheets accepted in evidence or the respondents' reduced calculation excluding disputed tasks." 'Whether the usual costs order should be varied because of alleged delay and the adjournment on 23 May 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proposed orders gave effect to the September judgment because they were based on the timesheet evidence and claims upheld in the proceedings, while the respondents' attempt to reopen factual disputes about recorded work was too late. The respondents were to pay the applicant's costs, but the applicant was to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the 23 May adjournment because the applicant was not ready to proceed on that day.

Court Disposition

Orders made substantially in favour of the applicant, with respondents jointly and severally liable for the money orders and costs, except that the applicant must pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the adjournment on 23 May.

Orders

  • ['The first and second respondents to pay the applicant the amount outstanding for unpaid work performed for ordinary Regulatory work, plus the sum claimed for unpaid work on the PharmaDirectory, in the sum of $24,819.30.' 'The first and second respondents to pay the applicant the amount outstanding for unpaid...