Agricultural & Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Atkinson (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1627

Agricultural & Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Atkinson (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1627

The current defendants, having failed on the remitted issues, were required to pay ARF's costs and the second cross-defendant's costs, subject to safeguards against double recovery. ARF's relationship with its legal advisers did not justify depriving it of costs because ARF was a separate legal entity that incurred legal costs in recovering debts owed by the defendants, and any reasonableness of costs could be addressed on assessment. No party had acted so unreasonably in relation to the 12 August 2014 motion as to warrant a costs order, so each party should bear its own costs of that motion. The defendants' opposition on the scope of the remitter was not an abuse of process, although...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination After Remitted Hearing From the Court of Appeal
Outcome
The current defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay ARF's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the summons against them and on their cross-claims, and to pay the second cross-defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on their cross-claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own...
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs of Motions Dismissed by Consent' 'double Recovery of Costs' 'scope of Remitter']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs of Motions Dismissed by Consent' 'double Recovery of Costs' 'scope of Remitter']

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 Determination After Remitted Hearing From the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether each party should bear his, her or its own costs because ARF's legal advisers had an indirect interest in ARF and a costs order might result in double recovery." "Whether ARF or the defendants should pay costs of the defendants' notice of motion filed on 12 August 2014 challenging ARF's solicitor's retainer and seeking summary dismissal." "Whether the defendants should pay ARF's costs on an indemnity basis for ARF's notice of motion filed on 30 June 2014 concerning the scope of the remitter." "Whether the defendants should pay ARF's costs on an indemnity basis from the time when Einstein J made final orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The current defendants, having failed on the remitted issues, were required to pay ARF's costs and the second cross-defendant's costs, subject to safeguards against double recovery. ARF's relationship with its legal advisers did not justify depriving it of costs because ARF was a separate legal entity that incurred legal costs in recovering debts owed by the defendants, and any reasonableness of costs could be addressed on assessment. No party had acted so unreasonably in relation to the 12 August 2014 motion as to warrant a costs order, so each party should bear its own costs of that motion. The defendants' opposition on the scope of the remitter was not an abuse of process, although...

Court Disposition

The current defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay ARF's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the summons against them and on their cross-claims, and to pay the second cross-defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on their cross-claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own...

Orders

  • ["Subject to orders 2 and 3, Geoffrey Nevell Fredericksen, Nicholas Charles Rowe, Maria Francesca Russo, David James Wardle, Jennifer Dianne Wallace, Franco Giannuzzi and Gavin Winston Long jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's/first cross-defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the summons...