Hugh Morrow & Ors v Chinadotcom Corporation & Ors [2001] NSWSC 193

Hugh Morrow & Ors v Chinadotcom Corporation & Ors [2001] NSWSC 193

Although the plaintiffs did not obtain the orders sought on 12 and 15 March 2001, their concerns about delay and communications concerning production of the Report were reasonable. For 12 March 2001, the first defendant's costs were made costs in the cause, while the plaintiffs and the second defendant were to bear their own costs because the second defendant's position changed in Court and documents had not been produced. For 15 March 2001, all parties were to pay their own costs because the plaintiffs and the first defendant each had some measure of success, and the communications of the second defendant justified the plaintiffs' concern even though no separate order was made against...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs of Notices of Motion / Costs Determination Following Notices of Motion Heard on 12 and 15 March 2001
Outcome
Costs orders made for the Motions heard on 12 and 15 March 2001.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'notices of Motion' 'interlocutory Relief' 'notice to Produce']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['costs' 'notices of Motion' 'interlocutory Relief' 'notice to Produce']

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 of Notices of Motion / Costs Determination Following Notices of Motion Heard on 12 and 15 March 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should receive costs, including indemnity costs, in respect of the Motion heard on 12 March 2001.' 'Whether the second defendant should receive indemnity costs in respect of the Motion heard on 12 March 2001.' 'Whether the first and second defendants should receive costs, including indemnity costs for the second defendant, in respect of the Motion heard on 15 March 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs did not obtain the orders sought on 12 and 15 March 2001, their concerns about delay and communications concerning production of the Report were reasonable. For 12 March 2001, the first defendant's costs were made costs in the cause, while the plaintiffs and the second defendant were to bear their own costs because the second defendant's position changed in Court and documents had not been produced. For 15 March 2001, all parties were to pay their own costs because the plaintiffs and the first defendant each had some measure of success, and the communications of the second defendant justified the plaintiffs' concern even though no separate order was made against...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made for the Motions heard on 12 and 15 March 2001.

Orders

  • ["In respect of the Motion heard on 12 March 2001, the first defendant's costs of the Motion of 12 March 2001 to be its costs in the cause." 'In respect of the Motion heard on 12 March 2001, the plaintiff and the second defendant are to pay their own costs of the Notice of Motion.' 'In respect of the Motion heard on...