Wolodymyr Holovinsky v The Commissioner of Police (No 3) [2006] NSWDC 88

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Wolodymyr Holovinsky v The Commissioner of Police (No 3) [2006] NSWDC 88

HEARING DATE(S): 06/12/2004-09/12/2004,13/12/2004-14/12/2004,16/12/2004-17/12/2004, 07/06/2005-09/06/2005, 15/06/2005, 31/07/2006-25/08/2006, 01/09/2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 09/01/2006

JURISDICTION: Civil (Residual Jurisdiction)

JUDGMENT OF: Neilson DCJ at 1

DECISION: Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. Certify for Senior Counsel. Certify for two counsel but only when two counsel were present. Plaintiff does not seek costs of 16 and 17 June 2005. Costs of today on a refresher basis.

CATCHWORDS: Whether plaintiff who abandoned numerous parts of his appeal at stages during a lengthy hearing ought only have part of his costs paid

Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987 District Court Act 1973 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

Ruddock v Vardalis (No2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 CASES CITED: Dew v The Delegate of the Anti Discrimination Commissioner (Northern Territory Supreme Court, 19 December 1997) Calman v The Commissioner of Police (1999) 19 NSWCCR 40

PARTIES: Wolodymyr Holovinsky (Plaintiff) The Commissioner of Police (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): RJ 6454/00

COUNSEL: Mr B Gross QC (Plaintiff) Ms A Stenmark SC and Mr A Kostopoulos (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Proctor & Associates (Plaintiff) Bartier Perry Solicitors (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an argument about costs. As I have remarked constantly in the twelve years of my appointment to the Bench, nothing excites the zeal, the ardour, and the passion of members of the legal profession, than an argument about costs.