OWNERS - STRATA PLAN 156 v GRAY [NO 2]

THE COURT : When handing down judgment on 3 September 2004 the Court reserved the questions of costs and restitution for further submission. No order for restitution is sought.

In its written submissions, the appellant seeks an order that the respondent pay its costs of the appeal. The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of damages awarded by the trial Judge to the respondent by just over $110,000. The principal issue, which was resolved in the appellant’s favour, was the amount awarded by the trial Judge for non-economic loss. The appellant submitted that there is no reason why the costs of the appeal should not follow the event. The cross-appeal related to the deduction from the amount awarded to the respondent for domestic assistance of 15 per cent for vicissitudes. At no time had the respondent raised with the trial Judge the inappropriateness of such a deduction when consideration was being given to the form of the orders at trial.

The respondent submitted that because the appellant was unsuccessful in its challenge to the award for future domestic assistance, future economic loss and future superannuation and the respondent successful on its cross-appeal an order should be made for costs in favour of the respondent or that each party should pay its or her costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.

In our opinion, at the hearing of the appeal the argument for the most part was directed to the appeal. The appellant was successful in reducing the damages awarded against it significantly and should have its costs of the appeal. The respondent is entitled to a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951. The cross-appeal was not seriously argued. There should be no order for the costs of the cross-appeal which was filed by leave when the hearing of the appeal began.

The order of the Court will therefore be that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal but have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951.