Wilson v F.T. Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Ors [2022] NSWDDT 4

Wilson v F.T. Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Ors [2022] NSWDDT 4

Restoration costs occasioned by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court proceedings are to be paid by Eastment, with no contribution from Amaca or Seltsam, as they were not parties to the Supreme Court proceedings and Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to expand the costs order to bind them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Post Settlement, Costs Determination
Outcome
Restoration costs to be paid by Eastment; Eastment to pay costs of Amaca and Seltsam on the application.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'restoration of Deregistered Company' 'apportionment Among Defendants' 'third Party Liability in Costs' "insurers' Guarantee Fund"]
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure' 'workers Compensation' 'corporate Law'] ['costs Orders' 'restoration of Deregistered Company' 'apportionment Among Defendants' 'third Party Liability in Costs' "insurers' Guarantee Fund"]

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

Procedural Ruling / Post Settlement, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who is responsible for restoration costs of a deregistered company under Supreme Court orders and Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation?' 'Can Tribunal make costs orders binding on parties not joined in Supreme Court?' 'Effect of contributions assessment and clause 55 DDT Regulations on costs apportionment']

Ratio Decidendi

Restoration costs occasioned by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court proceedings are to be paid by Eastment, with no contribution from Amaca or Seltsam, as they were not parties to the Supreme Court proceedings and Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to expand the costs order to bind them.

Court Disposition

Restoration costs to be paid by Eastment; Eastment to pay costs of Amaca and Seltsam on the application.

Orders

  • ['The restoration costs occasioned by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court proceedings are to be paid by Eastment, with no contribution from Amaca or Seltsam to those costs.' 'Eastment is to pay the costs of Amaca and Seltsam on this application in the Dust Diseases Tribunal.']