Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others (No 5) [2007] NSWIRComm 225

Industrial Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others (No 5) [2007] NSWIRComm 225

APPLICANT: Martin Terry

FIRST RESPONDENT: Huge Lights Pty Limited PARTIES: (ACN 002 638 888)

SECOND RESPONDENT: Jonathon Hughes

THIRD RESPONDENT: Michelle Hughes

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 2169 of 2002

CORAM: Schmidt J

CATCHWORDS: Costs - costs order - stay lifted - costs as agreed or assessed to follow event, with certain costs excepted as a matter of justice

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

CASES CITED: Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others (No 4) [2007] NSWIRComm 206 Martin Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others [2005] NSWIRComm 448

HEARING DATES: 30 August 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3 September 2007

APPLICANT: Mr BKB Cross of counsel SOLICITORS: Ronald M Fluit, Solicitor LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENTS: Mr RD Newell of counsel SOLICITORS: LC Muriniti & Associates

JUDGMENT:

- 1 - INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: Schmidt J

3 September 2007

Matter No IRC 2169 of 2002

MARTIN TERRY V HUGE LIGHTS PTY LIMITED AND OTHERS (No 5)

Application under s.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

JUDGMENT

(No 5) [2007] NSWIRComm 225

1 Judgment was given in this matter on 17 August 2007, staying further consideration of any costs order to be made in favour of the respondents, pending further order of the Court. (Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others (No 4) [2007] NSWIRComm 206.) When the matter was re-listed on the respondents' request, it was common ground that the abuse of the Court's process, which had led to the stay being ordered, had been addressed by the respondents. The costs ordered to be paid by the respondents in December 2005 had been paid. (See Martin Terry v Huge Lights Pty Limited and Others [2005] NSWIRComm 448.) 2 The respondents then pressed for the making of a costs order in their favour. The applicant opposed the making of such an order. All parties relied on the submissions which they had earlier advanced, which were dealt with in the August judgment. At [24] -[25], I there concluded, for reasons which had earlier been explained: 24 I am satisfied that in these circumstances, the proper approach is to stay any further consideration of the costs order which the respondents seek, until further order of the Court. This approach leaves open the possibility that the respondents' abuse of the Court's process will cease. Were that to occur, I would contemplate making a costs order in favour of the respondents, as agreed or assessed, other than in relation to the costs incurred by the respondents in dealing with the falsified customs documents. I am satisfied that justice could not permit the applicant being ordered to bear such costs.