George Stanley Copping, Faye Joyce Copping, Layton Saxon Copping, Neville George Copping, Wayne Malcolm Copping and Perball Pty Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Ltd, Galliott Pty Ltd, Tillett Nominees Pty Ltd, Kerry Stirling Hanel and Fred Kovaleff

(1995) 63 SASR 523; [1995] SASC 4917

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeal against costs order
4. › Whether leave required
5. › Whether error of law confers right of appeal without leave
6. › Supreme Court Act, s 50(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Leave to appeal
4. › Identity of judge empowered to grant leave
5. › Whether only judge making order can grant leave
6. › Supreme Court Act, s 50(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Interlocutory and final orders
4. › Order striking out notice of cross-appeal
5. › Whether interlocutory in character
6. › Supreme Court Act, s 50(3)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Discretion as to costs
4. › Whether unfettered discretion survived introduction of Rule 101.02(1)
5. › Preferred approach to exercise of discretion where plaintiff succeeds on some issues

Quick Take

An error of law in the exercise of a costs discretion does not of itself confer a right of appeal without leave under s 50(2) of the Supreme Court Act (SA); the error must be such as to vitiate the exercise of discretion entirely. Leave to appeal a costs order must be sought from the judge who made the order, not from another judge or the Full Court. An order striking out a notice of cross-appeal as to costs is interlocutory, not final.