Kennett and anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and ors & Myong Ho Pak v Mayrana Pty Ltd and anors [2005] NSWIRComm 134

Kennett and anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and ors & Myong Ho Pak v Mayrana Pty Ltd and anors [2005] NSWIRComm 134

Because the applicants had occasioned gross and extraordinary delay and had failed to comply with court orders in preparing the proceedings for hearing, they were required to pay the respondents' costs of the three interlocutory matters. However, because the Court was unsure whether the ultimate fault lay with the applicants, their legal practitioners, or both, costs were ordered on an assessed basis rather than an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Show Cause Hearing and Costs Ruling Following Delay and Non Compliance With Directions
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of three interlocutory matters on an assessed basis, payable forthwith; indemnity costs were declined.
Legal Topics
['application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'delay in Prosecution of Proceedings' 'amendment of Summonses' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'assessment of Costs Under the Legal Profession Act']
['industrial Relations' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'delay in Prosecution of Proceedings' 'amendment of Summonses' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'assessment of Costs Under the Legal Profession Act']

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 Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Show Cause Hearing and Costs Ruling Following Delay and Non Compliance With Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of three interlocutory proceedings caused by delay and non-compliance with court orders." 'Whether those costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis or on an assessed basis.' 'Whether responsibility for the delay lay with the applicants personally, their legal practitioners, or both.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants had occasioned gross and extraordinary delay and had failed to comply with court orders in preparing the proceedings for hearing, they were required to pay the respondents' costs of the three interlocutory matters. However, because the Court was unsure whether the ultimate fault lay with the applicants, their legal practitioners, or both, costs were ordered on an assessed basis rather than an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of three interlocutory matters on an assessed basis, payable forthwith; indemnity costs were declined.

Orders

  • ['The applicants are to pay the costs of the respondents in the three interlocutory matters referred to in the judgment.' 'Those costs shall be in an amount assessed under the Legal Profession Act in default of agreement.' 'Those costs should be payable forthwith.']