Penson v Joseph John Gilles trading as Giles Payne & Co [2013] NSWSC 1796

Penson v Joseph John Gilles trading as Giles Payne & Co [2013] NSWSC 1796

The application to reopen was refused because the plaintiffs produced nothing new of significance; the correspondence relied on was not new or fresh and instead confirmed that the original costs orders were correct. The defendants had reasonably sought an order that the plaintiffs pay the costs thrown away by the amendment, given the original summons was seriously flawed and the plaintiffs had refused to agree to pay those costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Reopen Hearing in Relation to Costs / On the Papers
Outcome
Application refused; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of and incidental to the application.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Case as to Costs' 'no New Material' 'matters Already Determined' 'finality of Interlocutory Costs Orders' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['application to Reopen Case as to Costs' 'no New Material' 'matters Already Determined' 'finality of Interlocutory Costs Orders' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment']

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

Application to Reopen Hearing in Relation to Costs / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to reopen the hearing of 24 September 2013 in relation to costs.' 'Whether the material relied on by the plaintiffs constituted new or fresh material justifying reconsideration of the costs orders.' 'Whether the defendants reasonably sought costs thrown away by the amendment to the summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen was refused because the plaintiffs produced nothing new of significance; the correspondence relied on was not new or fresh and instead confirmed that the original costs orders were correct. The defendants had reasonably sought an order that the plaintiffs pay the costs thrown away by the amendment, given the original summons was seriously flawed and the plaintiffs had refused to agree to pay those costs.

Court Disposition

Application refused; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

  • ['The application to reopen the hearing of 24 September 2013 in relation to costs is refused.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the application."]