Moray Vincent v Merrill Lynch Australia Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 254

Moray Vincent v Merrill Lynch Australia Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 254

Justice requires the respondent be given an opportunity to address the Court regarding costs. The order for costs in favour of the applicant is set aside and costs are reserved in accordance with the slip rule, as the parties had not been permitted to make submissions on costs.

Parties
Applicant: Moray Vincent; Respondent: Merrill Lynch Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Application Following Judgment
Outcome
Costs order set aside and costs reserved
Legal Topics
Costs, Slip Rule, Procedural Fairness
Industrial Law Costs Slip Rule Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moray Vincent

Applicant

Merrill Lynch Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Application Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to set aside the costs order under the slip rule
  2. 2 Whether the parties were denied an opportunity to address costs
  3. 3 Whether the slip rule applies if the court is functus officio

Ratio Decidendi

Justice requires the respondent be given an opportunity to address the Court regarding costs. The order for costs in favour of the applicant is set aside and costs are reserved in accordance with the slip rule, as the parties had not been permitted to make submissions on costs.

Court Disposition

Costs order set aside and costs reserved

Orders

  • Order No 7 made on 8 September 2000 is set aside
  • Costs in proceedings Matter IRC 648 of 1999 are reserved