Kalloghlian v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 1201

Kalloghlian v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 1201

There was no basis for finding that the applicant's motion had no prospects of success or was hopeless, and no evidence justifying concerns of delay or inability to comply with a costs assessment; thus, neither indemnity costs nor gross sum costs are warranted.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Avedis Kalloghlian; First Respondent: Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Richard Louis Mitry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Decision on Application for Special Costs Order
Outcome
Respondents' application for a special costs order dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Gross Sum Costs, Special Costs Order
Equity Costs Indemnity Costs Gross Sum Costs Special Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avedis Kalloghlian

Plaintiff/applicant

Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Richard Louis Mitry

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Decision on Application for Special Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether costs should be ordered as a specified gross sum under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis for finding that the applicant's motion had no prospects of success or was hopeless, and no evidence justifying concerns of delay or inability to comply with a costs assessment; thus, neither indemnity costs nor gross sum costs are warranted.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for a special costs order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondents' application for a special costs order is dismissed with costs.