JUDGMENT No. |'S46.7.23,_. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G34 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: S. & U. CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD Applicant AND: WESTWORLD PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD First Respondent AND: DAVID JAMES REMAR and JUDITH EVE REMAR a! . wa Bige = | BaBZO 3) 7 B2re 3 -| Pa . ° co ws MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 22 MARCH 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS: 1. (in lieu of proposed order 3 of 11 March 1988) that the second respondent, David James Remar, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed, provided that the costs in respect of the trial shall not include the last day's hearing; that the said order as to costs be perfected forthwith. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. Second Respondents IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G34 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: §. & U. CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD Applicant AND: WESTWORLD PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTy LTD First Respondent AND: DAVID JAMES REMAR and JUDITH EVE REMAR Second Respondents PINCUS J. 22 MARCH 1988 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter, on 11 March 1988, I handed dow my reasons and dismissed the application against the second respondent, Judith Eve Remar, and made an order that the second respondent, David James Remar, pay the sum of $113,000; and thirdly, made an order as to costs. During the course of discussion with the parties when the judgment was handed down, I decided to gave them an opportunity to address me on costs. With that in mind I made an order that order number 3, as to costs, not be perfected until further order. Today Mrs King has appeared on behalf of the respondents, and has argued that an order for costs should be made against the applicant in favour of Judith Eve Remar; I have 2. decided not to do that. I am told there is matrimonial trouble between the Remars. It would be the ordinary course, in these circumstances, to order that David James Remar pay the costs of Judith Eve Remar, but that is not asked for by anybody. Therefore, the order I made on 11 March 1988, insofar as it makes no provision for Judith Eve Remar's costs, will stand. A more difficult question arises with respect to the order as to the costs of the applicant against David James Remar. Mr Myers has suggested that the problem which arises as to costs of late amendments might be covered by an order providing that the respondent, David James Remar, should be relieved of his obligation as to costs insofar as that is brought about by the late amendments made by the applicant. In my opinion, such an order is in practice difficult to work out. My impression at' the hearing was that a substantial period of time was wasted because of late amendments, and what I propose to do, in order to give effect to that 1s to vary order number 3. Order number 3, in lieu of the presently proposed order, will read: the second respondent, David James Remar, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed, provided that the costs in respect of the trial shall not include the last day's hearing. 3. By that means, I hope that rough justice will be done, in that the respondent David James Remar will save a day's costs he would otherwise have paid, by deletion of the costs in respect of the last day's hearing. The only other order which it is necessary to make, I think, is that the order as to costs as made may be effected forthwith. I make that second order because at present the order 1s suspended. t cert fs tha- i . tane, fhe preceding 2 -e5y of the reasons for > €' of His Honour cciate Dated QQ Maven 198F