LAST month Justice Peter Hidden, on the verge of retirement from the NSW Supremes, awarded the plaintiff Katherine Wentworth costs of $100,000, plus interest at the Supreme Court rate, from March 6, 1987. After 30 years of litigation Wentworth v Rogers lives on … Another round in the country’s longest running courtroom drama … Costs awarded to Katherine Wentworth for 1985 damages action against her former husband
LAST month Justice Peter Hidden, on the verge of retirement from the NSW Supremes, awarded the plaintiff Katherine Wentworth costs of $100,000, plus interest at the Supreme Court rate, from March 6, 1987.
Katherine Wentworth sued Gordon Rogers, to who she had been married, for aggravated assault. Rogers cross-claimed for malicious prosecution, having been acquitted of criminal charges.
The case was heard by Maxwell J and a jury in late 1985 and there was a $571,000 verdict for the defendant in both the plaintiff’s claim and the cross-claim.
In March 1987, the Court of Appeal set aside the verdicts and ordered a new trial, adding that the costs of the first trial were to abide the results of the second trial.
Sully J then ordered that the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s cross-claim should proceed separately. Wentworth’s claim was upheld by a jury in June 1994, with an award of $2,000 damages, and Sully ordered Rogers to pay half the costs.
The issue was again before the Court of Appeal in December 2000. In any event, the result of the second trial would not be known until the cross-claim had been disposed of.
Ultimately, the cross-claim was not pursued and in February 2010, Registrar Bradford dismisses it with costs.
Wentworth now sought costs of the first trial. There had been further litigation about whether the costs of that trial remained outstanding (they were), and an unsuccessful appeal against Sully’s award of only half her costs.
Hidden said:
“Plainly enough, given the outcome of her appeal against the verdicts in the first trial and of the re-trial of her claim, she is entitled to the costs of the first trial.”
There was in evidence a lengthy and detailed bill of costs for the solicitors in the first trial, covering items from the outset of proceedings in 1982. It was agreed that the judge award a lump sum for the costs.
Discounting some items, in round figures the total amount sought was $186,000. After whittling it down Hidden came up with $100,000 as an appropriate figure, with interest from March 6, 1987.
Wentworth appeared in person and there was no appearance by Gordon Rogers.
On the same day Hidden also rejected a separate motion of Wentworth’s seeking orders against Rogers and his second wife Toni to untangle their property transactions, which the plaintiff claimed were a fraud on her right to have the costs judgment satisfied.
Rogers’ share in a Tamworth property had been mortgaged to Toni Rogers for $130,000 (plus interest). He also provided an indemnity to Mrs Rogers for costs arising out of the proceedings and to charge his share of the property to the value of those costs. The property was later sold.
Wentworth claimed the mortgage was a sham and the purpose was to give Toni priority if Gordon became bankrupt.
In 2003 Howie J rejected a summons to set aside these transactions. This was confirmed on appeal and special leave was refused by the High Court in January 2007.
Hidden said:
“Enough is enough. The issue has been determined and cannot be revisited.”
As the Court of Appeal observed when dealing with another aspect of Wentworth’s case, she “would not appear to find congenial the principle of finality of litigation”.
He dismissed the motion as no more than an attempt to re-litigate issues which have long been finally determined.
Of course, we are referring here to Katherine Wentworth Wentworth, not Katherine Wentworth from Dallas.