Smith v Edward (No 2) [2006] NFSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

Smith v Edward (No 2) [2006] NFSC 5

COSTS – Whether costs orders should be refused because of lack of compulsory motor accident compensation scheme on Norfolk Island – Whether costs orders should be limited because of successful defendant's failure on issues of non-justiciability and absence of duty of care which were raised by it. Held: Reduced costs orders are appropriate. PATRICK THOMAS SMITH v JOHN GEORGE EDWARD and ADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC7 of 2004 LORRAINE RUTH SMITH v JOHN GEORGE EDWARD and ADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC8 of 2004 ANDREA LEANNE SMITH v JOHN GEORGE EDWARD and ADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC9 of 2004 WILCOX J 16 JUNE 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC7 of 2004

BETWEEN: PATRICK THOMAS SMITH

PLAINTIFF

AND: JOHN GEORGE EDWARD

FIRST DEFENDANT

ADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND

SECOND DEFENDANT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 JUNE 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. There be judgment for the plaintiff, Patrick Thomas Smith, against the first defendant, John George Edward, in the sum of $69,764.98. 2. The first defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff, such costs being taxed on the basis that matters SC7 of 2004, SC8 of 2004 and SC9 of 2004 were conducted throughout as a single proceeding. 3. There be judgment for the second defendant, The Administration of Norfolk Island, against the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff pay two-thirds of the costs of the second defendant, such costs being taxed on the basis that matters SC7 of 2004, SC8 of 2004 and SC9 of 2004 were conducted throughout as a single proceeding.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC8 of 2004

BETWEEN: LORRAINE RUTH SMITH