Papas v Grave (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 398

Papas v Grave (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 398

The costs order should be varied because, although the Court had the benefit of further argument on questions raised after 29 May 2013, the need for a further hearing was prompted by Mr Kalyk's position as counsel for the respondents; had he not appeared on the appeal, there would have been no need for a further hearing. In all the circumstances, there should be no order as to the costs of the proceedings after 29 May 2013.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Costs Motion / Court of Appeal; on the Papers; Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Order Made After Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Order 4 made on 23 September 2013 was varied; the appellants' motion filed on 30 September 2013 was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Costs' 'costs of Further Hearing' 'variation of Costs Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure'] ['appeal Costs' 'costs of Further Hearing' 'variation of Costs Order']

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

Appeal Costs Motion / Court of Appeal; on the Papers; Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Order Made After Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the order that the appellants pay the respondents' costs should be varied in relation to costs incurred after 29 May 2013." "Whether there should be any order as to costs of the proceedings after 29 May 2013 when the further hearing was prompted by the position of the respondents' counsel."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order should be varied because, although the Court had the benefit of further argument on questions raised after 29 May 2013, the need for a further hearing was prompted by Mr Kalyk's position as counsel for the respondents; had he not appeared on the appeal, there would have been no need for a further hearing. In all the circumstances, there should be no order as to the costs of the proceedings after 29 May 2013.

Court Disposition

Order 4 made on 23 September 2013 was varied; the appellants' motion filed on 30 September 2013 was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 made on 23 September 2013 be varied to read: "4. The appellants are to pay the respondents\' costs in this Court up to and including 29 May 2013."' "The appellants' motion filed on 30 September 2013 be otherwise dismissed." 'No order as to costs of the motion of 30 September 2013.']