WB Jones Staircase & Handrail Pty Ltd v Richardson & Ors (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 236

WB Jones Staircase & Handrail Pty Ltd v Richardson & Ors (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 236

Because the Court of Appeal reduced the apportionment of liability against Mirvac and WB Jones to 25 percent each and increased JMKG's responsibility to 50 percent, and because that success was sufficient rather than marginal, both the District Court costs and the first respondent's costs of the appeals should be borne in those same proportions, with each defendant or appellant otherwise bearing its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision in Appeals From District Court Negligence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision on Outstanding Costs Issues on the Papers After Judgment on the Appeals
Outcome
Additional costs orders made; District Court costs and appeal costs adjusted to reflect apportionment of liability of 25 percent for Mirvac, 25 percent for WB Jones and 50 percent for JMKG.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs' 'costs of Trial' 'costs of Appeal' 'apportionment of Liability' 'personal Injury Damages']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['apportionment of Costs' 'costs of Trial' 'costs of Appeal' 'apportionment of Liability' 'personal Injury Damages']

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 Decision in Appeals From District Court Negligence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision on Outstanding Costs Issues on the Papers After Judgment on the Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether District Court costs orders should be adjusted to reflect the Court of Appeal's changed apportionment of liability." 'Whether costs of the appeals should be borne in the same proportions as the appeal findings on apportionment.' "Whether Mirvac and WB Jones should pay any part of JMKG's costs of the appeals."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Court of Appeal reduced the apportionment of liability against Mirvac and WB Jones to 25 percent each and increased JMKG's responsibility to 50 percent, and because that success was sufficient rather than marginal, both the District Court costs and the first respondent's costs of the appeals should be borne in those same proportions, with each defendant or appellant otherwise bearing its own costs.

Court Disposition

Additional costs orders made; District Court costs and appeal costs adjusted to reflect apportionment of liability of 25 percent for Mirvac, 25 percent for WB Jones and 50 percent for JMKG.

Orders

  • ["In lieu of the orders made by Judge Cogswell SC on 11 July 2012 an additional order be made: (ix) Each of the defendants is to bear the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as to 25 percent by Mirvac, as to 25 percent by WB Jones and as to 50 percent by JMKG but otherwise each defendant is to bear its own costs of...