BTM1 v Scout Association of Australia New South Wales Branch (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 806

BTM1 v Scout Association of Australia New South Wales Branch (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 806

The application to vary the order as to costs is refused because neither the plaintiff’s entitlement to commence proceedings, the reasonableness of the cause of action, the timing of disclosure of relevant evidence, nor his impecuniosity (which was not supported by evidence) are sufficient—either individually or collectively—to justify a departure from the principle that costs follow the event. The order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs stands.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Permanent Stay in Historical Sexual Abuse Damages Proceeding / Post Judgment (costs Application After Final Orders)
Outcome
Application for revised costs order dismissed; original costs order affirmed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'historical Sexual Abuse' 'permanent Stay' 'impecuniosity' 'vicarious Liability']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['costs' 'historical Sexual Abuse' 'permanent Stay' 'impecuniosity' 'vicarious Liability']

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 for Costs Following Permanent Stay in Historical Sexual Abuse Damages Proceeding / Post Judgment (costs Application After Final Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be displaced in a historical sexual abuse claim which was permanently stayed' "Whether the plaintiff's impecuniosity is sufficient to justify an alternative costs order" 'Whether the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of evidence relied on for permanent stay should affect costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the order as to costs is refused because neither the plaintiff’s entitlement to commence proceedings, the reasonableness of the cause of action, the timing of disclosure of relevant evidence, nor his impecuniosity (which was not supported by evidence) are sufficient—either individually or collectively—to justify a departure from the principle that costs follow the event. The order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs stands.

Court Disposition

Application for revised costs order dismissed; original costs order affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The application by the plaintiff for a revised order for costs is dismissed.']