Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd v Titan National Pty Ltd [2014] NSWDC 79

Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd v Titan National Pty Ltd [2014] NSWDC 79

The Costs Review Panel did not err in law. The trial judge’s indemnity costs order was clear in requiring all costs from the offer of compromise date to be paid on an indemnity basis, and refusal of earlier indemnity costs applications did not carve out those interlocutory costs from this global order. Questions about the procedure for varying previous costs orders are matters for the primary judge and not for reconsideration in the costs assessment process. No error of law has been shown in the Review Panel’s approach.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Aquaqueen International Pty Limited (ACN 094 129 389); Second Plaintiff: Shirley Penson; First Defendant: Titan National Pty Limited (ACN 092 896 029); Second Defendant: Kathryn Wood-Weber; Third Defendant: Stephen John Lancken; Fourth Defendant: Rosemary Workman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment Determining S 384 Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw) Appeal From Costs Review Panel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Indemnity Costs, Offer of Compromise, Interpretation of Costs Orders, Appeal on Question of Law Under S 384 Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Indemnity Costs Offer of Compromise Interpretation of Costs Orders Appeal on Question of Law Under S 384 Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aquaqueen International Pty Limited (ACN 094 129 389)

First Plaintiff

Shirley Penson

Second Plaintiff

Titan National Pty Limited (ACN 092 896 029)

First Defendant

Kathryn Wood-Weber

Second Defendant

Stephen John Lancken

Third Defendant

Rosemary Workman

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment Determining S 384 Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw) Appeal From Costs Review Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Review Panel erred in interpreting the trial judge’s indemnity costs order as covering all relevant costs from 26 February 2010, including those previously the subject of interlocutory orders refusing indemnity costs.
  2. 2 Whether a successful party was required under UCPR rr 42.2 and 42.7 to seek to set aside previous costs orders to obtain indemnity costs on later orders.
  3. 3 Whether judgment on costs not provided to the Costs Review Panel could be admissible as fresh evidence on a s 384 appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Review Panel did not err in law. The trial judge’s indemnity costs order was clear in requiring all costs from the offer of compromise date to be paid on an indemnity basis, and refusal of earlier indemnity costs applications did not carve out those interlocutory costs from this global order. Questions about the procedure for varying previous costs orders are matters for the primary judge and not for reconsideration in the costs assessment process. No error of law has been shown in the Review Panel’s approach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.
  • Plaintiffs pay defendants' costs.