Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 1588

JUDGMENT No. 238. JE.

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NO ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 863 of 1996

GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SWITZERLAND INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Appellant

MOWIE FISHERIES PTY LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: BEAUMONT, HILL, SACKVILLE JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 3 JUNE, 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Order 4(b) of the orders made on 10 April 1997, staying Order 2 made on that date, be discharged.

| FEDERAL COURT OF

\ AUSTRALIA PRINGEAL REGSTRY

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NO ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 863 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SWITZERLAND INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Appellant

MOWIE FISHERIES PTY LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: BEAUMONT, HILL, SACKVILLE JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 3 JUNE, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Hill and Sackville JJ: Judgment was delivered in this appeal on 10 April 1997. By majority (Hill and Sackville JJ, Beaumont J dissenting) the

following orders were made:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 3. Order 2 be stayed for a period of 14 days.

4. Should either party file written submissions on costs

within 14 days:

(a) the other party should file written submission in reply within a further 14 days from the filing of

the first submissions; and

(b) Order 2 is stayed until further order.

The orders took this form in order to allow the parties, if

they wished, to file submissions. on costs.

The appellant filed written submissions seeking an order that each party bear its own costs of the appeal or, alternatively, that the appellant be ordered to pay only two thirds of the respondent's costs of the appeal. The respondent, for its part, contended that costs should be awarded in its favour on an indemnity basis or, alternatively, that costs simply follow