Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse & Anor [2005] NSWCA 342

Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse & Anor [2005] NSWCA 342

Although the case against the first and second respondents were based on distinct grounds, the second respondent's failure to provide adequate discovery and incorrect admission regarding signage caused an extension of the hearing, necessitating the recall of witnesses and expert evidence. Accordingly, the second...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Suppachai Chotiputhsilpa (by his tutor Supparek Chotiputhsilpa); First Respondent: George Allan Waterhouse; Second Respondent: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made apportioning responsibility as specified; Bullock or Sanderson orders refused except as to specified costs of extended hearing time.
Legal Topics
Costs, Bullock Order, Sanderson Order, Discovery, Apportionment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Bullock Order Sanderson Order Discovery Apportionment of Costs

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suppachai Chotiputhsilpa (by his tutor Supparek Chotiputhsilpa)

Appellant

George Allan Waterhouse

First Respondent

Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order should be made concerning costs liability between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent should pay the first respondent’s costs owing to conduct at trial
  3. 3 Whether any change can be made to the order concerning the third defendant's (STA) costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the case against the first and second respondents were based on distinct grounds, the second respondent's failure to provide adequate discovery and incorrect admission regarding signage caused an extension of the hearing, necessitating the recall of witnesses and expert evidence. Accordingly, the second respondent is responsible for the appellant’s costs of the trial and appeal, and also for 3 days of the first respondent’s trial costs, reflecting the time lost due to its conduct. No Bullock or Sanderson order is warranted in this case for the first respondent’s remaining costs or for costs relating to the STA, as the claims and conduct were sufficiently independent.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made apportioning responsibility as specified; Bullock or Sanderson orders refused except as to specified costs of extended hearing time.

Orders

  • The second respondent pay the appellant's costs of the trial and of the appeal.
  • The second respondent pay the costs of the first respondent in respect of 3 days of the trial proceedings; otherwise the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of the trial and of the appeal.