Turelin Nominees Pty Ltd v Dainford Ltd [1984] FCA 141

th tu ie) ct is) s tn

CATC

HANGRES

TURELIN NOMINEES PRY

VG No. 202 of 1932

LTD.

Ty vise

RArNEOPD LIMTT=

to make orders as t

Qa Q QO un ct i)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: . —

ted) iD ct «1 << iy i$) jayk=} (Resrcendencr)

asapfe a fae vd fe} ee ey fon 1) La} CQ ry ft cr py" oO nh uv cy

< Order: 31 May 1984

The respondent pay to the applicant his costs of and

incidental to the action including reserved costs.

The oplicant pay to the respondent the costs of the attendance in Melbourne of its Witnesses Bancy, Kiernandéda, Flintoff and Holt, and ct obtaining their attendance.

The acecilcanc cay to the vresvcendent =y0 thirds cf its

a fe) roy a u oO my, fa D A ~ rs] fe) rR fa owct % ra qt oO ral r» t wm iv Lay fo] ye) oO mh cat Pp [2 ta4 a ct a rs oO .

2.

Sth, 6th, 7th, Sth and 9th December 1993 1n addition to

the costs of the above menticned witnesses.

4, The costs payable by the applicant and the respondent respectively he set off against each other, the balance to be paid to the oarty to when an amount is still owing by the other party.

5. There be Liberty to anoly.

6. Each party bear their own costs of and incicencteli to

this Notice of Motion.

al —

i

VICECRES DISTRICT REGIST E

GENERAL DIVISTON

ctoO un c a a oO uN uv my G ee "3 a a] ct <4 fon Lom D

costs.

the hearin

F.) Ps ry un p. © <q oO a p. a

contravened s.52 of the Tr

ara submissions as to costs. As

However, the resvondent roints out that the bulk of

the claim that the

ace Practices Act 1974 and was

negligent, and respondent's conduct Was negligent, the

sablish any entictlement

tc e¢

oO

applicant failec to pcove

- a - - = = - » at co relist in cesrect thereot. CTNal The atpliczant s claim fcr conaucit Fazied. Tae arxiicanct

2.

succeeded upcn the issue of the construction and, effect er the

contract as

15D on leve

able and willing to deliver unic

or is) ct

providing for the saié Re applicant of uni