Cosmos E-C Commerce Pty. Ltd. v. Sue Bidwell & Associates Pty. Ltd. (No.2) [2005] NSWCA 238

Cosmos E-C Commerce Pty. Ltd. v. Sue Bidwell & Associates Pty. Ltd. (No.2) [2005] NSWCA 238

Order 4 should be varied only to clarify that the Court set aside Rolfe DCJ's listing and evidence-service orders, not his costs order; otherwise the existing costs orders should stand because neither the asserted Calderbank correspondence nor the other submissions provided a sufficient basis to re-open them or to release the $10,000.00 security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Procedure Costs / Post Judgment Written Submissions in Chambers in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Order 4 made on 18 May 2005 was vacated and replaced; no order was made as to the costs of the post-judgment submissions.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'appeal Costs' 'variation of Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'appeal Costs' 'variation of Orders']

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

Procedure Costs / Post Judgment Written Submissions in Chambers in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 4 made on 18 May 2005 should be altered so as to preserve the costs order made by Rolfe DCJ.' 'Whether costs orders 3(d) and 5(b) should stand.' 'Whether the order for the costs of the application for leave and appeal should be changed because of the exchange of letters in September 2004.' 'Whether any order should be made about the $10,000.00 held as security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 4 should be varied only to clarify that the Court set aside Rolfe DCJ's listing and evidence-service orders, not his costs order; otherwise the existing costs orders should stand because neither the asserted Calderbank correspondence nor the other submissions provided a sufficient basis to re-open them or to release the $10,000.00 security.

Court Disposition

Order 4 made on 18 May 2005 was vacated and replaced; no order was made as to the costs of the post-judgment submissions.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 made on 18 May 2005 vacated, and in lieu thereof "Set aside the order that the proceedings be set down to be heard on 30 July 2004 on the question of damages and the orders that the claimant and opponent file and serve evidence in relation to question of damages".' 'No order as to the costs of the...