Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 13

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 13

The notice of motion was dismissed because Ranclose's application sought to make additional submissions and reagitate the same costs issue that had been foreshadowed in the leave judgment, addressed in written submissions, and raised directly by the Court at the appeal hearing. Ranclose did not demonstrate that the Court proceeded under any relevant misapprehension of fact or law when deciding in the principal judgment to make no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application to Vary Costs Order / Notice of Motion Filed 19 October 2023 Determined on the Papers After the Court Delivered Judgment in the Appeal
Outcome
The notice of motion filed 19 October 2023 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Vary Costs Order' 'ucpr R 36.16(3 A)' 'security for Costs' 'costs of Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['application to Vary Costs Order' 'ucpr R 36.16(3 A)' 'security for Costs' 'costs of Appeal']

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

Costs Application to Vary Costs Order / Notice of Motion Filed 19 October 2023 Determined on the Papers After the Court Delivered Judgment in the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants established a basis under UCPR r 36.16 to vary Order 4, which made no order as to the costs of the appeal.' 'Whether the Court had proceeded under a relevant misapprehension of fact or law when making no order as to the costs of the appeal.' "Whether Ranclose's further costs submissions improperly sought to reagitate an issue raised in written submissions and at the appeal hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because Ranclose's application sought to make additional submissions and reagitate the same costs issue that had been foreshadowed in the leave judgment, addressed in written submissions, and raised directly by the Court at the appeal hearing. Ranclose did not demonstrate that the Court proceeded under any relevant misapprehension of fact or law when deciding in the principal judgment to make no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion filed 19 October 2023 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 19 October 2023 is dismissed with costs.']