Lelio Falasca v Margaret Morrissy [1997] ACTSC 110 (19 December 1997)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

LELIO FALASCA v MARGARET MORRISSY
No. SC 637 of 1995
Number of pages - 2

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

MASTER CONNOLLY

CATCHWORDS

HEARING

CANBERRA, 7 November 1997 (hearing), 19 December 1997 (decision)

19:12:1997

Appearances

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr R Crowe

Instructing Solicitors: Scott Sheils & Glover

Counsel for the Defendant: Ms C E Adamson

Instructing Solicitors: Abbott Tout Harper Blain

ORDER

Order: The question of costs be adjourned until the outcome of the appeal is known.

DECISION

MASTER CONNOLLY

This matter involved a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. On 19 September 1997 I entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,200, and ordered that costs be reserved, and granted leave to the parties to arrange a suitable date to hear argument as to costs. As a result of this order the matter came before me on 7 November where directions were made in relation to written submissions as to the question of costs, and a timetable was imposed on such submissions.

The final submissions, by way of the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's submissions, was lodged with the Court on 12 December 1997. It became apparent as I approached the submissions that the parties are now of the view that a final decision on costs ought not be made at this stage. The plaintiff has lodged an appeal against my decision, and says in its submissions lodged on 4 December 1997 that

"The plaintiff has requested the defendant to have the question of costs adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal in this matter. The defendant has refused the request. The question of costs now arising should be reserved until the outcome of the appeal. The costs associated with arguing the question of costs might be rendered wholly, or partly redundant by the appeal. It is an unnecessary expense, and there is no prejudice to the defendant to await the outcome of the appeal. There is considerable precedent for such a course. Aside from the issue as to costs, it is probably undesirable, particularly if the Master were to retry any portion of the case as a result of the appeal, to exercise a discretion on costs now, in the light of the various considerations the authorities suggest a Court might consider."

In the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's submissions on costs lodged on 12 December 1997 the defendant says

"The defendant accepts the prudence of the proposal outlined in paragraph 1 of the plaintiff's submissions and respectfully requests the court not to adjudicate on the question of costs until after the Full Court has determined the plaintiff's appeal on quantum."

The plaintiff's argument has considerable force, and is supported by the defendant in its final submission. For me to properly consider the question now would involve me going into questions relating to payments into court and matters surrounding the negotiations leading up to the original hearing. The plaintiff's submissions specifically request that I refrain from doing so, and in light of the defendant's final submissions, I have avoided this course. The outcome of the Full Court appeal should be awaited before the question of costs before me is determined, and the course then to be adopted will depend on the outcome of that appeal which may of course involve a rehearing of some of the issues.

I therefore order that the question of costs be adjourned until the outcome of the appeal is known.