Nassif v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1390

Nassif v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1390

Although the second applicant received only nominal damages, its case substantially overlapped with the first applicant's case, the respondents' defences applied to both applicants and were rejected, the additional damages evidence for the second applicant did not substantially lengthen the hearing, other relief and vindication were important, and the respondents' proposed 50% costs order did not reflect the conduct of the proceedings or the applicants' success on the substantial issues. The appropriate order was that the respondents pay 80% of the applicants' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders and Costs Following Substantive Judgment in Defamation Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Judgment
Outcome
Verdicts entered for both applicants and respondents ordered to pay 80% of the applicants' costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'nominal Damages' 'costs Apportionment' 'vindication in Defamation Proceedings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'nominal Damages' 'costs Apportionment' 'vindication in Defamation Proceedings']

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

Consequential Orders and Costs Following Substantive Judgment in Defamation Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should pay all or only part of the applicants' costs where the second applicant received nominal damages." "Whether the respondents' proposed order that they pay half of the applicants' costs adequately reflected the outcome and conduct of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the second applicant received only nominal damages, its case substantially overlapped with the first applicant's case, the respondents' defences applied to both applicants and were rejected, the additional damages evidence for the second applicant did not substantially lengthen the hearing, other relief and vindication were important, and the respondents' proposed 50% costs order did not reflect the conduct of the proceedings or the applicants' success on the substantial issues. The appropriate order was that the respondents pay 80% of the applicants' costs.

Court Disposition

Verdicts entered for both applicants and respondents ordered to pay 80% of the applicants' costs.

Orders

  • ['There be a verdict for the first applicant in the amount of $109,397 (inclusive of pre-judgment interest).' 'There be a verdict for the second applicant in the amount of $546 (inclusive of pre-judgment interest).' "The respondents pay eighty percent of the applicants' costs to be agreed or assessed."]