Beaven v Fink (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 356

Beaven v Fink (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 356

The Court ordered ordinary basis costs according to the outcome of the pleaded claims: the second and third defendants, against whom orders were made, had to pay the plaintiffs' costs of trespass, conversion and slander involving them, while the plaintiffs had to pay Dr Thomas Fink's costs because the pleaded trespass and conversion claims against him failed. Indemnity costs, proportionality limits and a stay were refused because the asserted grounds were not made out on the evidence and circumstances described.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2009
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Costs Hearing / Judgment on Costs Following Reasons for Judgment Published on 19 August 2009
Outcome
Application for stay refused; costs ordered on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['costs After Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'stay of Orders' 'proportionality of Costs' 'trespass' 'conversion' 'slander']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'torts'] ['costs After Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'stay of Orders' 'proportionality of Costs' 'trespass' 'conversion' 'slander']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Costs Hearing / Judgment on Costs Following Reasons for Judgment Published on 19 August 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay Dr Thomas Fink's costs on the trespass and conversion claims or whether each party should bear their own costs." "Whether the second and third defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis." 'Whether interlocutory costs orders concerning identification of Dr Thomas Fink should be set aside.' 'Whether costs should be limited on proportionality grounds.' 'Whether the orders should be stayed pending any appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered ordinary basis costs according to the outcome of the pleaded claims: the second and third defendants, against whom orders were made, had to pay the plaintiffs' costs of trespass, conversion and slander involving them, while the plaintiffs had to pay Dr Thomas Fink's costs because the pleaded trespass and conversion claims against him failed. Indemnity costs, proportionality limits and a stay were refused because the asserted grounds were not made out on the evidence and circumstances described.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; costs ordered on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The application for the stay is refused.' "The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in trespass, conversion and slander, involving the second and third defendants." 'The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of Doctor Thomas Fink on the claims against him in trespass and...