Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM; (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1668

Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM; (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1668

Although the ordinary order would have been for costs to follow the separate events on the claim and cross-claim, that approach would likely require contentious, lengthy and expensive separate assessments because the cross-claim was also pleaded as a defence and overlapped with issues on which the plaintiff succeeded. Given the relatively small monetary dispute, the plaintiff's overall success, the defendant's success in reducing the amount payable, and the failure of many cross-claim issues, substantial costs justice required a broad-brush order that the defendant pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs, with the defendant also to pay the costs of the transfer application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs in Commercial Proceedings Involving a Claim and Cross Claim / Costs Determination After Verdicts on the Plaintiff's Claim and the Defendant's Cross Claim
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, with separate treatment for the costs of the transfer application.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'claim and Cross Claim' 'set Off' 'broad Brush Costs Order' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'commercial Litigation'] ['costs Following the Event' 'claim and Cross Claim' 'set Off' 'broad Brush Costs Order' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of 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

Costs in Commercial Proceedings Involving a Claim and Cross Claim / Costs Determination After Verdicts on the Plaintiff's Claim and the Defendant's Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow each event on the claim and cross-claim and then be set off.' 'Whether the relatively small amount in issue and the likely complexity and cost of costs assessment justified a broad-brush costs order.' "What costs order should reflect the plaintiff's overall success and the defendant's partial success on the cross-claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the ordinary order would have been for costs to follow the separate events on the claim and cross-claim, that approach would likely require contentious, lengthy and expensive separate assessments because the cross-claim was also pleaded as a defence and overlapped with issues on which the plaintiff succeeded. Given the relatively small monetary dispute, the plaintiff's overall success, the defendant's success in reducing the amount payable, and the failure of many cross-claim issues, substantial costs justice required a broad-brush order that the defendant pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs, with the defendant also to pay the costs of the transfer application.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, with separate treatment for the costs of the transfer application.

Orders

  • ['Verdict in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with para 1 of the form of judgment initialled by the judge and dated 3 November 2015.' 'Verdict in favour of the cross-claimant in accordance with para 2 of the form of judgment.' 'Entry of judgment directed in accordance with para 3 of the form of judgment.' 'The...