McEwen v AIDC Limited; Brink v AIDC Limited; Hewitt v AIDC Equipment Finance Limited & Anor [2000] NSWIRComm 68

McEwen v AIDC Limited; Brink v AIDC Limited; Hewitt v AIDC Equipment Finance Limited & Anor [2000] NSWIRComm 68

The court was not functus officio in respect of costs because the original judgment did not address costs—this was not deliberate finality. The respondents, as successful parties, were entitled to seek and receive a costs order in the absence of any basis advanced to depart from the usual rule.

Parties
Applicant: Philip Nicholas McEwen; Respondent: AIDC Limited; Applicant: Michael Brink; Applicant: William James Hewitt; First Respondent: AIDC Equipment Finance Limited; Second Respondent: AIDC Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Post Judgment Motion for Costs After Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs as agreed or assessed
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Costs, Slip Rule, Jurisdiction of Court After Judgment
Industrial Relations Employment Law Unfair Contract Costs Slip Rule Jurisdiction of Court After Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Nicholas McEwen

Applicant

AIDC Limited

Respondent

Michael Brink

Applicant

William James Hewitt

Applicant

AIDC Equipment Finance Limited

First Respondent

AIDC Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Post Judgment Motion for Costs After Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court was functus officio regarding the order of costs after judgment had been entered
  2. 2 Whether an order for costs could be made under the slip rule where not previously sought at hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not functus officio in respect of costs because the original judgment did not address costs—this was not deliberate finality. The respondents, as successful parties, were entitled to seek and receive a costs order in the absence of any basis advanced to depart from the usual rule.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs as agreed or assessed

Orders

  • Applicants to pay respondents' costs as agreed or assessed