Karam v Palmone Shoes & Anor

[2014] VSCA 148

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Accident Compensation
2. › Costs
3. › Proceedings for damages for personal injury arising out of or in course of employment
4. › Statutory costs regime
5. › Whether order for trial of two proceedings together affected their separate identity for costs purposes
6. › Whether s 134AB(28) applied to asthma proceeding notwithstanding cancer proceeding exempt under s 135BA(2)
7. › Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), ss 134AB(28), 135BA(2)
1. Appeal
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Fraud
4. › Application to set aside final judgment on grounds of fraud
5. › Procedural requirements for setting aside judgment for fraud
6. › Whether cogent evidence of fraud established
7. › Burden of proof on party alleging fraud
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Repeated applications on same grounds
4. › Application to set aside summary judgment where substantially identical application already litigated to High Court
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Adjournment
3. › Case management
4. › Whether further adjournment should be granted
5. › Long history of adjournments and accommodation
6. › Proportionality of court resources

Quick Take

An order that two proceedings be tried together does not merge them into a single proceeding for the purposes of the statutory costs regime under s 134AB(28) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic). The exemption from s 134AB(28) provided by s 135BA(2) applies only to proceedings brought pursuant to s 135BA, not to other proceedings heard at the same time. The potential for overlapping costs between jointly tried proceedings is a matter for taxation.