Younan v GIO General Limited (ABN 22 002 861 583) (No. 2) [2012] NSWDC 149

Younan v GIO General Limited (ABN 22 002 861 583) (No. 2) [2012] NSWDC 149

The adjournment was refused because the plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan had long been aware of the application and hearing date, had repeatedly failed to comply with timetables, had already received extensions, and the child's hospitalisation did not explain earlier non-compliance. A non-party costs order was justified because Mr Younan's connection with the proceedings was extremely close: he arranged the policy, effectively conducted the litigation, had the financial interest as owner of the vehicle, knew the plaintiff was a person of straw, and the litigation was unreasonable and improper. Indemnity costs for the whole proceedings were warranted by exceptional circumstances involving...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Notice of Motion Seeking Costs Against a Non Party and Indemnity Costs, With an Adjournment Application
Outcome
Adjournment application dismissed; defendant's costs ordered against the plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan jointly and severally on an indemnity basis, including investigation costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Against a Non Party' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'adjournment Application' 'costs of Investigation of Insurance Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'insurance Litigation'] ['costs Against a Non Party' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'adjournment Application' 'costs of Investigation of Insurance Claim']

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

Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Notice of Motion Seeking Costs Against a Non Party and Indemnity Costs, With an Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's and Mr Raymond Younan's application to adjourn the costs application should be granted." 'Whether costs should be ordered against Mr Raymond Younan as a non-party.' "Whether the defendant's costs should be assessed and payable on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan." 'Whether the costs of investigating insurance claim 7811004845 should be included as costs of and incidental to the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan had long been aware of the application and hearing date, had repeatedly failed to comply with timetables, had already received extensions, and the child's hospitalisation did not explain earlier non-compliance. A non-party costs order was justified because Mr Younan's connection with the proceedings was extremely close: he arranged the policy, effectively conducted the litigation, had the financial interest as owner of the vehicle, knew the plaintiff was a person of straw, and the litigation was unreasonable and improper. Indemnity costs for the whole proceedings were warranted by exceptional circumstances involving...

Court Disposition

Adjournment application dismissed; defendant's costs ordered against the plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan jointly and severally on an indemnity basis, including investigation costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's and Mr Raymond Younan's application to adjourn the hearing of this application are dismissed." 'The plaintiff and Mr Raymond Younan are jointly and severally liable to pay the whole of the costs payable to the defendant by the plaintiff as set out in order 2 of the orders of 29 June 2012.' "The...