ALMEIDA v. UNIVERSAL DYE WORKS PTY. LIMITED & ORS. (NO. 2) [2001] NSWCA 156

ALMEIDA v. UNIVERSAL DYE WORKS PTY. LIMITED & ORS. (NO. 2) [2001] NSWCA 156

The Court had jurisdiction to reconsider its costs orders. Universal's denial that it was the head contractor, considered in the factual context of the close relationship and potential confusion among Universal, Baleskim and Newtown, made it fair and reasonable for the appellant to have sued all three and justified Bullock costs orders requiring Universal to bear the appellant's costs liabilities to the successful respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Costs Motion / Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of Court of Appeal Costs Orders After Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; further Bullock costs orders made; no order as to costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'costs Against Unsuccessful Defendant' 'costs of Successful Defendants' 'multiple Defendants' 'reconsideration of Costs Orders']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['bullock Order' 'costs Against Unsuccessful Defendant' 'costs of Successful Defendants' 'multiple Defendants' 'reconsideration of Costs Orders']

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

Civil Appeal Costs Motion / Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of Court of Appeal Costs Orders After Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Appeal should reconsider the costs orders made on 12 December 2000.' "Whether Universal should pay the appellant's costs of the trial payable by her to Baleskim and Newtown." "Whether the appellant's appeal costs payable by Universal should include the costs payable by the appellant to Baleskim and Newtown." "Whether Universal's conduct or the circumstances of its relationship with the other respondents made it fair and reasonable to make a Bullock order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction to reconsider its costs orders. Universal's denial that it was the head contractor, considered in the factual context of the close relationship and potential confusion among Universal, Baleskim and Newtown, made it fair and reasonable for the appellant to have sued all three and justified Bullock costs orders requiring Universal to bear the appellant's costs liabilities to the successful respondents.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; further Bullock costs orders made; no order as to costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to amend the notice of motion by adding paragraph 2A.' "Order 4 of the Court's orders dated 12 December 2000 amended by adding that the First Respondent pay the appellant's costs of the trial payable by her to the Second and Third Respondents." "Order 5 of the Court's orders dated 12 December 2000...