Kennett and Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors (No 14) [2010] NSWIRComm 64

Kennett and Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors (No 14) [2010] NSWIRComm 64

Professor Kennett was unsuccessful in his appeals and liable for costs following the event. The costs of the three days in February 2008 should be borne by Professor Kennett for the first two days, with each party to bear its own costs for the third day due to Dr Berwick’s illness. There was insufficient reason to grant a certificate under s 6(1A) of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.

Parties
Applicant/appellant/respondent: Keith Franklin Kennett; Applicant/appellant/respondent: K F Kennett Nominees Pty Ltd; Respondent: Mayrana Pty Ltd; Respondent/appellant: Katarina Muc t/as G H Healey & Co., Hurstville; Respondent/appellant: Gregory Harrison Healey t/as G H Healey & Co., Sydney; Respondent/appellant: Dr John P Berwick
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Costs After Appeal and Cross Appeals
Outcome
Appeal costs determined and application for certificate refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Unfair Contract Proceedings, Leave to Appeal, Appeal Procedure, Indemnity Certificate
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Unfair Contract Proceedings Leave to Appeal Appeal Procedure Indemnity Certificate

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Franklin Kennett

Applicant/appellant/respondent

K F Kennett Nominees Pty Ltd

Applicant/appellant/respondent

Mayrana Pty Ltd

Respondent

Katarina Muc t/as G H Healey & Co., Hurstville

Respondent/appellant

Gregory Harrison Healey t/as G H Healey & Co., Sydney

Respondent/appellant

Dr John P Berwick

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Costs After Appeal and Cross Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of three hearing days in February 2008?
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the appeals and cross-appeals?
  3. 3 Is Professor Kennett entitled to a certificate under s 6(1A) of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951?

Ratio Decidendi

Professor Kennett was unsuccessful in his appeals and liable for costs following the event. The costs of the three days in February 2008 should be borne by Professor Kennett for the first two days, with each party to bear its own costs for the third day due to Dr Berwick’s illness. There was insufficient reason to grant a certificate under s 6(1A) of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.

Court Disposition

Appeal costs determined and application for certificate refused.

Orders

  • In matters 2189 of 2008 and 1050 of 2009, Professor Kennett to pay the respondents' costs, with costs of only the first two days of the February 2008 hearing to be paid by Professor Kennett and all parties to bear their own costs of the third day.
  • In matter 1200 of 2009, Professor Kennett to pay Dr Berwick's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.