Vintage Developments Pty Limited v GHD Pty Limited (No 4) [2007] FCA 73

Vintage Developments Pty Limited v GHD Pty Limited (No 4) [2007] FCA 73

Save for a reduction of costs payable to the third respondent (Mr Johnston) after 15 September 2006, the applicants are liable for the costs of the second and third respondents as their conduct in contesting the amendments was not unreasonable except that the third respondent unnecessarily repeated rejected arguments from earlier proceedings.

Parties
First Applicant: Vintage Developments Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Errol Investments Pty Limited; First Respondent / Cross–claimant: GHD Pty Limited; Second Respondent / Cross–respondent: Hunter Valley Estates Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Grant Heaton Johnston
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay second respondent's costs in full relating to the notice of motion of 11 September 2006, and to pay the third respondent's costs up to and including 15 September 2006 and 50% thereafter.
Legal Topics
Costs, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Costs Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Joinder Limitation Period

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vintage Developments Pty Limited

First Applicant

Errol Investments Pty Limited

Second Applicant

GHD Pty Limited

First Respondent / Cross–claimant

Hunter Valley Estates Pty Ltd

Second Respondent / Cross–respondent

Grant Heaton Johnston

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the applicants' motion for leave to amend the application and statement of claim?
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the second and third respondents in contesting the amendments affected the costs orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Save for a reduction of costs payable to the third respondent (Mr Johnston) after 15 September 2006, the applicants are liable for the costs of the second and third respondents as their conduct in contesting the amendments was not unreasonable except that the third respondent unnecessarily repeated rejected arguments from earlier proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay second respondent's costs in full relating to the notice of motion of 11 September 2006, and to pay the third respondent's costs up to and including 15 September 2006 and 50% thereafter.

Orders

  • The applicants pay the second respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 11 September 2006.
  • The applicants pay the third respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 11 September 2006 up to and including 15 September 2006 and 50% of the third respondent's costs thereafter.