Bromley & Ors v Forestry Commission of New South Wales; Sweetman v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2001] NSWSC 629

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Bromley & Ors v Forestry Commission of New South Wales; Sweetman v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2001] NSWSC 629 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1847/96; 1525/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 July 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 July 2001

1847/96 James Edward Bromley (First Plaintiff) Christine Many Pollitt (Second Plaintiff) PARTIES : Patricia Ruth Bromley (Third Plaintiff) Forestry Commission of New South Wales (Defendant) 1525/97 Kenneth Irwin Sweetman (Plaintiff) Forestry Commission of New South Wales (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Bergin J

COUNSEL : AS Martin SC (Plaintiffs) SJ Gageler SC (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Deacons (Plaintiffs) IV Knight (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Application for indemnity costs on basis of conduct claimed to be unreasonable - Failure to follow express findings in a judgment referring cost determinations to the defendant for re-determination. One.Tel Ltd & Ors v Commission of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548 CASES CITED : Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 Rosniak v Government Insurance Office (1997) 41 NSWLR 608 DECISION : See paragraph 36.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN J

DATE: WEDNESDAY 25 JULY 2001

1847/96 - BROMLEY & ORS v FORESTRY COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES 1525/97 - SWEETMAN V FORESTRY COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES BERGIN J JUDGMENT

1 These are applications brought by the plaintiffs for an order that the defendant pay their further costs from 2 September 1999 to date on an indemnity basis. 2 These cases were heard together in 1999 and I gave judgment in respect of what was referred to as the "s.30E(2) claims" on 5 August 1999: Bromley & Anor v Forestry Commission of New South Wales; Sweetman v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [1999] NSWSC 791. This judgment should be read in conjunction with that judgment at pages 21 - 55. 3 There were two periods in respect of which I made findings in relation to the defendant's determinations of costs. The first period was 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1991 and the second was 1 January 1992 to 30 January 1996.