McGrath v Sturesteps; Sturesteps v HIH Overseas Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 331

McGrath v Sturesteps; Sturesteps v HIH Overseas Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 331

The trial judge's approach not to apportion costs up to 19 February 2010 was appropriate, given the respondent's substantial success and the overlap between issues; after 19 February 2010, the appellants had significant success on retrenchment and apportionment of leave claims, justifying an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs from that date onward.

Parties
First Appellant / First Cross Respondent: Anthony Gregory McGrath; Second Appellant / Second Cross Respondent: Christopher John Honey; Third Appellant / Third Cross Respondent: HIH Casualty & General Insurance Limited (in liquidation); Respondent / Cross Appellant: George Osvald Sturesteps
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Costs
Outcome
Appellants to pay respondent's costs up to and including 19 February 2010; respondent to pay appellants' costs thereafter.
Legal Topics
Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Litigation With Multiple Issues
Civil Procedure Costs Apportionment of Costs Litigation With Multiple Issues

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Gregory McGrath

First Appellant / First Cross Respondent

Christopher John Honey

Second Appellant / Second Cross Respondent

HIH Casualty & General Insurance Limited (in liquidation)

Third Appellant / Third Cross Respondent

George Osvald Sturesteps

Respondent / Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How costs should be apportioned between parties in a complex proceeding with multiple issues and partial successes
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the general rule that they follow the event in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's approach not to apportion costs up to 19 February 2010 was appropriate, given the respondent's substantial success and the overlap between issues; after 19 February 2010, the appellants had significant success on retrenchment and apportionment of leave claims, justifying an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs from that date onward.

Court Disposition

Appellants to pay respondent's costs up to and including 19 February 2010; respondent to pay appellants' costs thereafter.

Orders

  • The appellants pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings at first instance up to and including 19 February 2010.
  • The respondent pay to the appellants their costs of the proceedings to the extent that such costs were incurred after 19 February 2010.