Perry and Bell v Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 883

Perry and Bell v Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 883

Given that the effect of making costs orders for crossclaims would be to effectively cancel each other out, and considering the statutory regime's limitations, the appropriate order is that each of the first, second, and third defendants bear his or its own costs regarding the crossclaims to which the third defendant is a party, and each such crossclaim is dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: William Charles Perry; Plaintiff: Stanley William Bell; First Defendant: Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited; Second Defendant: Kenneth William Eldridge; Third Defendant: GrainCorp Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment (amendment of Orders, Costs Determination)
Outcome
Orders amended to dismiss crossclaims involving the third defendant and to require each of the first, second, and third defendants to bear their own costs for those crossclaims.
Legal Topics
Costs, Cross Claims, Work Injury Damages
Common Law Costs Cross Claims Work Injury Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Charles Perry

Plaintiff

Stanley William Bell

Plaintiff

Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited

First Defendant

Kenneth William Eldridge

Second Defendant

GrainCorp Operations Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment (amendment of Orders, Costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How to dispose of crossclaims involving the third defendant (GrainCorp)
  2. 2 What costs orders are appropriate regarding dismissed crossclaims involving the third defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the effect of making costs orders for crossclaims would be to effectively cancel each other out, and considering the statutory regime's limitations, the appropriate order is that each of the first, second, and third defendants bear his or its own costs regarding the crossclaims to which the third defendant is a party, and each such crossclaim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Orders amended to dismiss crossclaims involving the third defendant and to require each of the first, second, and third defendants to bear their own costs for those crossclaims.

Orders

  • Each crossclaim to which the third defendant is a party is dismissed.
  • Each of the first, second and third defendants is to bear his or its own costs of the crossclaims to which the third defendant is a party.