Victorian WorkCover Authority v Kagan Bros Consolidated Pty Ltd

(2011) 31 VR 386; [2011] VSCA 91

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Bullock orders
4. › Whether claims against defendants must be interdependent or alternative
5. › Whether substantial connection between claims sufficient
6. › Whether conduct of unsuccessful defendant justified order for indemnity costs
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Bullock orders
4. › Apportionment proceedings under s 138 Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic)
5. › Whether nature of s 138 proceedings precludes Bullock order
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Calderbank offers
4. › Unreasonable refusal to accept offer
5. › Whether indemnity costs resulting from unreasonable refusal can be passed to unsuccessful defendant via Bullock order
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Costs orders
4. › Discretionary decisions
5. › Whether substantial injustice shown
6. › County Court Act 1958 (Vic), s 74(2E)

Quick Take

The requirement that claims be 'interdependent or essentially alternative' is not an immutable precondition for a Bullock order; a substantial connection between claims may suffice. Bullock orders are available in s 138 Accident Compensation Act 1985 apportionment proceedings. However, a plaintiff who unreasonably refuses Calderbank offers from a successful defendant cannot pass the resulting indemnity costs burden to the unsuccessful defendant via a Bullock order where the unsuccessful defendant's conduct did not induce the persistence in the claim.