Marshall v Fleming (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1785

Marshall v Fleming (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1785

To remove any doubt or ambiguity about the scope of the previous costs orders and in the interests of justice, the court has set aside earlier orders and clarified that the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on different bases for different periods.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Margaret Lesley Marshall; Second Plaintiff: Kim Neil Marshall; First Defendant: Francis G Fleming; Second Defendant: Marc S Moller; Third Defendant: Steven R Pounian; Fourth Defendant: James P Kreindler; Fifth Defendant: David C Cook; Sixth Defendant: David Beekman; Seventh Defendant: Bianca I Rodriguez; Eighth Defendant: Noah H Kushlefsky; Ninth Defendant: Robert J Spragg; Tenth Defendant: Brian J Alexander; Eleventh Defendant: Justin T Green
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial—costs Determination
Outcome
Previous costs orders set aside and new orders as to costs made to clarify scope.
Legal Topics
Costs, Clarification of Orders, Slip Rule
Civil Procedure Costs Clarification of Orders Slip Rule

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Lesley Marshall

First Plaintiff

Kim Neil Marshall

Second Plaintiff

Francis G Fleming

First Defendant

Marc S Moller

Second Defendant

Steven R Pounian

Third Defendant

James P Kreindler

Fourth Defendant

David C Cook

Fifth Defendant

David Beekman

Sixth Defendant

Bianca I Rodriguez

Seventh Defendant

Noah H Kushlefsky

Eighth Defendant

Robert J Spragg

Ninth Defendant

Brian J Alexander

Tenth Defendant

Justin T Green

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial—costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to clarify and amend previous costs orders under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to avoid ambiguity regarding their scope.

Ratio Decidendi

To remove any doubt or ambiguity about the scope of the previous costs orders and in the interests of justice, the court has set aside earlier orders and clarified that the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on different bases for different periods.

Court Disposition

Previous costs orders set aside and new orders as to costs made to clarify scope.

Orders

  • Set aside order 1 made on 5 December 2017.
  • Set aside order 2 made on 24 August 2017 and in lieu thereof order: (a) The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 30 April 2017. (b) The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis thereafter.