Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Smith [No.2] [2000] NSWCA 160

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Smith [No.2] [2000] NSWCA 160

Smith's application to revisit the 19 April 2000 judgment was refused because the matters he relied upon arose only from his wish to adopt a different litigation approach after judgment, and he had not cross-appealed or sought leave to cross-appeal in respect of the judgment against Leighton. Costs should generally follow the event, but further written applications were permitted only on costs questions arising from AMP's solicitors' letter concerning B&B's liquidation, deregistration and AMP's asserted refusal to indemnify B&B.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Costs Application / Court of Appeal Decision on Written Submissions After Judgment Delivered on 19 April 2000
Outcome
Smith's application to revisit the judgment delivered on 19 April 2000 was refused; limited further costs directions were made.
Legal Topics
['application to Revisit Judgment' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Between Defendants' 'workers Compensation Damages Limitation' 'liability Apportionment']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation' 'tort Law'] ['application to Revisit Judgment' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Between Defendants' 'workers Compensation Damages Limitation' 'liability Apportionment']

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

Appeal; Costs Application / Court of Appeal Decision on Written Submissions After Judgment Delivered on 19 April 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Smith was entitled to have the Court revisit or revise its judgment delivered on 19 April 2000.' "Whether costs should follow the event in the appellate proceedings, subject to issues arising from AMP General Insurance Limited's solicitors' letter." "Whether further costs applications should be permitted concerning B&B's liquidation, deregistration and AMP's asserted refusal to indemnify B&B."]

Ratio Decidendi

Smith's application to revisit the 19 April 2000 judgment was refused because the matters he relied upon arose only from his wish to adopt a different litigation approach after judgment, and he had not cross-appealed or sought leave to cross-appeal in respect of the judgment against Leighton. Costs should generally follow the event, but further written applications were permitted only on costs questions arising from AMP's solicitors' letter concerning B&B's liquidation, deregistration and AMP's asserted refusal to indemnify B&B.

Court Disposition

Smith's application to revisit the judgment delivered on 19 April 2000 was refused; limited further costs directions were made.

Orders

  • ['Application by Smith to "revisit" the judgment on 19 April 2000 refused.' "Direct that, within 14 days from today, Smith and / or Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd may file and serve further applications in respect of costs, together with supporting material, including written submissions, limited to costs questions...