George Thomas Hotels (Campsie) Pty Limited and Anor v NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority and Ors [2017] NSWSC 994

George Thomas Hotels (Campsie) Pty Limited and Anor v NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority and Ors [2017] NSWSC 994

The Second and Third Defendants had legitimate and separate interests to protect, were necessarily joined, and the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the main point and inappropriately opposed joinder, so they should receive costs; however, because the Second and Third Defendants unsuccessfully persisted in the standing argument, the Plaintiffs should pay only 70% of their costs of the 6 June hearing while paying their costs of the joinder argument.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Argument Following Judgment Delivered on 19 June 2017
Outcome
The Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Second and Third Defendants' costs of the joinder argument and 70% of their costs of the 6 June 2017 hearing; the Plaintiffs had agreed to pay the First Defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'separate Representation' 'joinder' 'standing' 'removal Application Under S.59 of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw)']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'liquor Licensing'] ['costs Discretion' 'separate Representation' 'joinder' 'standing' 'removal Application Under S.59 of the Liquor Act 2007 (nsw)']

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 / Costs Argument Following Judgment Delivered on 19 June 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What costs order should be made after the plaintiffs succeeded on standing but failed on the main issue concerning the Authority's power to revisit the Removal Application." "Whether the Second and Third Defendants should receive costs despite the plaintiffs' submission that their interests duplicated those of the First Defendant." 'Whether the Second and Third Defendants should receive costs of the joinder argument and the substantive hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Second and Third Defendants had legitimate and separate interests to protect, were necessarily joined, and the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the main point and inappropriately opposed joinder, so they should receive costs; however, because the Second and Third Defendants unsuccessfully persisted in the standing argument, the Plaintiffs should pay only 70% of their costs of the 6 June hearing while paying their costs of the joinder argument.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Second and Third Defendants' costs of the joinder argument and 70% of their costs of the 6 June 2017 hearing; the Plaintiffs had agreed to pay the First Defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiffs should pay the Second and Third Defendants' costs of the joinder argument before the Court on 12 May 2017." "The Plaintiffs should pay 70% of the Second and Third Defendants' costs before the Court on 6 June 2017."]