Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Limited (Formerly Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd) v Dampier Port Authority

[2007] WASC 87

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs thrown away by amendment of pleading
4. › Whether costs of preparing schedule of objections to abandoned pleading were properly and reasonably incurred
5. › Surrogate method of assessment
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 59 r 9, O 66 r 18
7. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Power to award costs of conferral process
4. › Whether court has power to direct payment of costs incurred in conferral required under O 59 r 9
5. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 59 r 9
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Conferral
3. › Nature of conferral process under O 59 r 9
4. › Whether preparation of prolix schedule of objections constituted conferral
5. › Requirement for oral communication in genuine attempt to resolve dispute
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 59 r 9
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from Registrar
4. › Nature of appeal as hearing de novo
5. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 60A r 4, O 60A r 6

Quick Take

The conferral process under O 59 r 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) requires oral communication between representatives with authority to settle, not merely the exchange of written schedules of objections. Where a party incurs disproportionate costs in responding to a pleading that is later abandoned, the court may adopt a surrogate method of assessment based on what would have been reasonably incurred in a meaningful conferral process, rather than undertaking a detailed review of each objection. Pedantic and prolix objections to pleadings that obscure substantive issues will not be rewarded in costs.