Ballard v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2013] NSWCA 18

Ballard v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2013] NSWCA 18

Indemnity costs orders are not warranted in the absence of contumelious or plainly unreasonable conduct; a belated but reasonable explanation for delay was given and party and party costs are appropriate.

Parties
Appellant/respondent on Motions: David Ballard; First Respondent/applicant on Motion: Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd; Second Respondent/applicant on Motion: Multiplex Corporate Agency Ltd; Third Respondent/applicant on Motion: Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union; Fourth Respondent/applicant on Motion: Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (New South Wales Branch); Fifth Respondent/applicant on Motion: Andrew Ferguson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Order After Notices of Motion Regarding Non Compliance With Court Orders
Outcome
Appellant ordered to pay costs of respondents' notices of motion on a party and party basis; application for indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Delay in Filing Submissions, Indemnity Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Non Compliance With Court Orders Delay in Filing Submissions Indemnity Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ballard

Appellant/respondent on Motions

Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd

First Respondent/applicant on Motion

Multiplex Corporate Agency Ltd

Second Respondent/applicant on Motion

Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union

Third Respondent/applicant on Motion

Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (New South Wales Branch)

Fourth Respondent/applicant on Motion

Andrew Ferguson

Fifth Respondent/applicant on Motion

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Order After Notices of Motion Regarding Non Compliance With Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered for non-compliance with court directions regarding service of submissions
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the appellant's solicitors was contumelious

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs orders are not warranted in the absence of contumelious or plainly unreasonable conduct; a belated but reasonable explanation for delay was given and party and party costs are appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appellant ordered to pay costs of respondents' notices of motion on a party and party basis; application for indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the costs of the respective respondents' notices of motion on a party and party basis.