Nelson v Moorcraft

[2015] WASCA 19

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs of discontinued appeal
4. › Whether ordinary rule that discontinuing appellant pays respondent's costs should be displaced
5. › Whether special circumstances existed
6. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 59(4)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Costs orders of trial judge
4. › Whether separate appeal against costs order appropriate where substantive appeal already on foot
5. › Whether commencement of separate appeal was misconceived

Quick Take

Where a substantive appeal is already on foot, the commencement of a separate appeal against the trial judge's costs orders is misconceived because those costs orders are reviewable in the substantive appeal. Discontinuance of such a misconceived appeal does not constitute a special circumstance displacing the ordinary rule under r 59(4) that the discontinuing appellant must pay the respondent's costs.

Case Details

Citation[2015] WASCA 19

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2014Nelson v MoorcraftWASCA 212
2012Nelson v MoorcraftWADC 170

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in