Lowes Park P/L v. Headlam, C.B. & Ors [1994] FCA 865

JUDGMENT No. sane 2

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION E TRALIA ) ) TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) TG 3001 of 1993

) GENERAL DIVISION )

RE: Wy. PTY LTD

BETWEEN: E RY _HEADLAM TRUSTEE OF THE C.B. J. HEAD; Applicant AND: LOWE: PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: IAN EDWARD HEADLAM

Second Respondent

AND: IAN EDWARD HEADLAM

Cross-Claimant

AND: HARLES BARRY HEAD.

Cross-Respondent

CORAM: Burchett J.

PLACE: Sydney (heard in Hobart) DATE : 18 November 1994

INS_ FOR NT

In this matter I delivered judgment on 30 September 1994, when I ordered that the respondents, within fourteen days, bring in short minutes of orders, and that the applicant file and serve, within a further fourteen days, a document setting out any objections to or variations of the short minutes for which he

contended.

2. Following the delivery of this judgment, the parties did in fact file contending versions of what they submitted were appropriate orders, and also brief written submissions. No party

sought to be heard orally.

The dispute as to the form of the orders is particularly concerned with the costs of a cross-claim filed and served in the proceeding, but not pursued at the hearing. In my opinion, the applicant is entitled to have the result of the cross-claim taken into account in the formulation of the terms of the costs order

that should be made.

I now make the following orders:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The cross-claim be dismissed.

3. Any interlocutory orders be discharged.

4. The costs of the respondents of and incidental to the application (except to the extent that these costs may have been increased by the bringing of the cross-claim) be paid by Charles Barry Headlam, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement and to include any reserved costs.

5. The costs of the cross-respondent to the extent that those costs are referable to the institution of the cross-claim be paid by the cross-claimant, such costs to be taxed in