Steele-Smith & Ors v Liberty Financial Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 487

Steele-Smith & Ors v Liberty Financial Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 487

The Plaintiffs' proceedings against the Defendants were unjustifiably commenced and bound to fail; the Defendants and Vestecorp were put to the expense of litigation because of the Plaintiffs' claims and related cross-claims; and the Plaintiffs' choice to be represented by a non-lawyer did not justify any special indulgence. Justice therefore required the Plaintiffs to bear the Defendants' costs of the Statement of Claim and the Defendants' and Vestecorp's costs of the First and Second Cross Claims, subject to preventing double recovery of costs already recoverable under the first judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment / Costs Reserved After Judgment Delivered on 28 April 2005; Written Submissions Without Further Oral Argument
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the Statement of Claim and the costs of the Defendants and Vestecorp of the First and Second Cross Claims, subject to no double recovery.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'unsuccessful Party Costs' 'litigant in Person' 'sanderson Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'unsuccessful Party Costs' 'litigant in Person' 'sanderson Order']

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 Judgment / Costs Reserved After Judgment Delivered on 28 April 2005; Written Submissions Without Further Oral Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiffs should pay the Defendants' costs of the Statement of Claim." 'Whether the Plaintiffs should pay the costs of the Defendants and Vestecorp of the First and Second Cross Claims.' "Whether the Plaintiffs' representation by a litigant in person warranted any special consideration in making costs orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' proceedings against the Defendants were unjustifiably commenced and bound to fail; the Defendants and Vestecorp were put to the expense of litigation because of the Plaintiffs' claims and related cross-claims; and the Plaintiffs' choice to be represented by a non-lawyer did not justify any special indulgence. Justice therefore required the Plaintiffs to bear the Defendants' costs of the Statement of Claim and the Defendants' and Vestecorp's costs of the First and Second Cross Claims, subject to preventing double recovery of costs already recoverable under the first judgment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the Statement of Claim and the costs of the Defendants and Vestecorp of the First and Second Cross Claims, subject to no double recovery.

Orders

  • ['The Plaintiffs will pay the costs of the Defendants on the Statement of Claim.' 'The Plaintiffs will pay the costs of the Defendants and of Vestecorp of the First and Second Cross Claims.' 'To the extent that the Defendants recover any costs from Vestecorp under the First Cross Claim pursuant to the order in...