Diver v Object Oriented Pty Ltd and Anor [2003] NSWIRComm 254

Diver v Object Oriented Pty Ltd and Anor [2003] NSWIRComm 254

Rule 210 was construed as having the same practical effect as the comparable Federal Court rule considered in Woods v Walsh, so that absent a contrary order the applicant's success in the substantive proceedings would prima facie entitle him to costs of the reserved motion. However, that result would not be just because the applicant failed on the motion, no concluded conciliation agreement had been reached, the respondents' conduct was not reprehensible, and the applicant nevertheless succeeded in the substantive proceedings. Justice between the parties required each party to pay its own costs on the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract Costs Issue / Judgment Re Costs on Notice of Motion After Interlocutory Motion Was Dismissed and Substantive Proceedings Were Determined
Outcome
Each party to pay its own costs on the motion.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'reserved Costs' 'notice of Motion' 'conciliation Settlement' 'costs Discretion']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'costs'] ['unfair Contract' 'reserved Costs' 'notice of Motion' 'conciliation Settlement' 'costs Discretion']

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; Unfair Contract Costs Issue / Judgment Re Costs on Notice of Motion After Interlocutory Motion Was Dismissed and Substantive Proceedings Were Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, despite failing on the notice of motion, should receive the costs of the motion because he succeeded in the substantive proceedings.' 'Whether the respondents should receive their costs of the motion because the applicant was unsuccessful on that motion.' 'Whether the Commission should otherwise order that each party pay its own costs on the motion under its costs discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 210 was construed as having the same practical effect as the comparable Federal Court rule considered in Woods v Walsh, so that absent a contrary order the applicant's success in the substantive proceedings would prima facie entitle him to costs of the reserved motion. However, that result would not be just because the applicant failed on the motion, no concluded conciliation agreement had been reached, the respondents' conduct was not reprehensible, and the applicant nevertheless succeeded in the substantive proceedings. Justice between the parties required each party to pay its own costs on the motion.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its own costs on the motion.

Orders

  • ['Each party pay its own costs on the motion.']