In the matter of GPM Constructions Pty Ltd – Oreb v GPM Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1455

In the matter of GPM Constructions Pty Ltd – Oreb v GPM Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1455

The reference to "the defendants" in the costs order was an accidental slip because the plaintiffs did not seek a costs order against the third defendant, so the order should be varied to refer to "the first and second defendants". No further variation was warranted because the intended costs order was that the plaintiffs recover 85% of their costs of the whole proceedings on the ordinary basis, the principal dispute concerning access to company records flowed from the originating process through to the amended originating process, the plaintiffs were substantially successful overall, and the defendants had not sought the proposed limitation in submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling Concerning Variation of Costs Order / On the Papers After Publication of Costs Reasons
Outcome
Order varied under the slip rule by substituting "the first and second defendants" for "the defendants"; further variation sought by the defendants refused.
Legal Topics
['amending, Varying and Setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'accidental Slip or Omission' 'ucpr R 36.17' 'costs of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['amending, Varying and Setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'accidental Slip or Omission' 'ucpr R 36.17' 'costs of Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling Concerning Variation of Costs Order / On the Papers After Publication of Costs Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order should be varied under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.17 by substituting "the first and second defendants" for "the defendants".' 'Whether the costs order should be further varied by changing "costs of the originating process" to "costs of the amended originating process".']

Ratio Decidendi

The reference to "the defendants" in the costs order was an accidental slip because the plaintiffs did not seek a costs order against the third defendant, so the order should be varied to refer to "the first and second defendants". No further variation was warranted because the intended costs order was that the plaintiffs recover 85% of their costs of the whole proceedings on the ordinary basis, the principal dispute concerning access to company records flowed from the originating process through to the amended originating process, the plaintiffs were substantially successful overall, and the defendants had not sought the proposed limitation in submissions.

Court Disposition

Order varied under the slip rule by substituting "the first and second defendants" for "the defendants"; further variation sought by the defendants refused.

Orders

  • ['Vary the order made on 26 August 2020 by substituting "the first and second defendants" for "the defendants" pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.17.' 'Do not vary the costs order further to limit it to costs of the amended originating process.']