(Re Olson) Eraring Energy v Babcock Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 8

(Re Olson) Eraring Energy v Babcock Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 8

Babcock Australia Pty Ltd was liable to pay Eraring Energy's costs of the cross-claim as agreed or assessed because cl 44(3) creates an indemnity costs liability in specified circumstances but does not exclude ordinary costs where those circumstances are absent, and Eraring Energy would have been entitled to costs had it pursued the cross-claim later and succeeded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Tribunal Asbestos Disease Proceeding Involving Cross Claims for Contribution / Ruling on Liability for Costs of Eraring Energy's Cross Claim Against Babcock Australia Pty Ltd After Settlement and Apportionment Under Cl 44 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation
Outcome
Eraring Energy was held entitled to the costs of its cross-claim against Babcock Australia Pty Ltd as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['claims Resolution Process' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation Cl 44' 'cross Claim for Contribution' 'apportionment Among Defendants' 'costs of Cross Claim']
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['claims Resolution Process' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation Cl 44' 'cross Claim for Contribution' 'apportionment Among Defendants' 'costs of Cross Claim']

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

Dust Diseases Tribunal Asbestos Disease Proceeding Involving Cross Claims for Contribution / Ruling on Liability for Costs of Eraring Energy's Cross Claim Against Babcock Australia Pty Ltd After Settlement and Apportionment Under Cl 44 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Babcock Australia Pty Ltd was liable to pay Eraring Energy's costs of the cross-claim in addition to its agreed 4.875 per cent contribution to the plaintiff's judgment sum." "Whether cl 44 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation limited Babcock Australia Pty Ltd's liability to the agreed contribution to the plaintiff's damages and costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Babcock Australia Pty Ltd was liable to pay Eraring Energy's costs of the cross-claim as agreed or assessed because cl 44(3) creates an indemnity costs liability in specified circumstances but does not exclude ordinary costs where those circumstances are absent, and Eraring Energy would have been entitled to costs had it pursued the cross-claim later and succeeded.

Court Disposition

Eraring Energy was held entitled to the costs of its cross-claim against Babcock Australia Pty Ltd as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Eraring Energy should have the costs of its cross-claim against Babcock Australia Pty Ltd as agreed or assessed.']