NORTHERN RIVERINA COUNTY COUNCIL v PETTS & ANOR (NO 2) [2002] NSWCA 89

NORTHERN RIVERINA COUNTY COUNCIL v PETTS & ANOR (NO 2) [2002] NSWCA 89

Order 5 had to be set aside because the council abandoned its appeal against Masling in relation to the first cross-claim and the verdict for Masling on that cross-claim should have remained. The costs order also required variation because some costs were exclusively referable to Masling's cross-claim and some to the council's cross-claim, but Masling's broader participation and financial interest justified it sharing the general burden of the council's costs at first instance and on appeal with the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Amendment of Orders Costs / Court of Appeal After Orders Made on Appeal
Outcome
Orders 5 and 8 set aside and replacement costs orders made; no order as to the costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Appellate Orders' 'costs of Appeal and First Instance Proceedings' 'cross Claims' 'workers Compensation Recovery Under S 151 Z']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation' 'negligence'] ['amendment of Appellate Orders' 'costs of Appeal and First Instance Proceedings' 'cross Claims' 'workers Compensation Recovery Under S 151 Z']

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

Amendment of Orders Costs / Court of Appeal After Orders Made on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether order 5 made on 4 October 2001 should be set aside because the council had abandoned its appeal against Masling on the first cross-claim.' 'How the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below should be allocated between the plaintiffs, Masling and the council.' "Whether costs exclusively referable to Masling's cross-claim against the council and the council's cross-claim against Masling should be treated separately."]

Ratio Decidendi

Order 5 had to be set aside because the council abandoned its appeal against Masling in relation to the first cross-claim and the verdict for Masling on that cross-claim should have remained. The costs order also required variation because some costs were exclusively referable to Masling's cross-claim and some to the council's cross-claim, but Masling's broader participation and financial interest justified it sharing the general burden of the council's costs at first instance and on appeal with the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Orders 5 and 8 set aside and replacement costs orders made; no order as to the costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Orders 5 and 8 be set aside.' "Masling and the plaintiffs pay the council's costs of the appeal, and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified." "The costs exclusively referable to Masling's cross-claim against the council be paid by Masling." "The costs exclusively referable to the...