CT Money v AFIG Wholesale & Anor [2010] NSWSC 898

CT Money v AFIG Wholesale & Anor [2010] NSWSC 898

AFIG was successful on the single real dispute between the parties, namely whether CT could take the benefit of the DC Loans without the burden, and it succeeded on its primary ground that CT acted as DC's delegate. There was no sufficient reason to depart from the usual order that costs follow the event. DC was a necessary party because AFIG's defence required assertion of rights against DC, so CT was liable for DC's costs up to and including the separate question hearing. After judgment, AFIG's investigation of further claims against DC led to the vacated costs hearing and its discontinuance of the cross-claim, so AFIG was liable for DC's costs of the cross-claim and for CT's costs of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Supreme Court Equity Proceedings / Post Hearing Costs Determination Following Separate Question Hearing and Application for Leave to Discontinue Cross Claim
Outcome
The defendants were granted leave to discontinue the first cross-claim so far as it concerned the second cross defendant, the balance of the proceedings was dismissed, and costs orders were made between the parties.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'discontinuance of Cross Claim' 'necessary Party Costs' 'separate Questions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'discontinuance of Cross Claim' 'necessary Party Costs' 'separate Questions']

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 Application in Supreme Court Equity Proceedings / Post Hearing Costs Determination Following Separate Question Hearing and Application for Leave to Discontinue Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made between CT and AFIG in relation to the proceedings and the hearing before Young CJ in Eq.' "What costs order should be made in relation to DC's costs as second cross defendant." 'Whether AFIG should have leave to discontinue its cross-claim against DC.' 'Whether CT or AFIG should bear costs associated with the appearance before Gzell J on 22 September 2009 and the vacation of that hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

AFIG was successful on the single real dispute between the parties, namely whether CT could take the benefit of the DC Loans without the burden, and it succeeded on its primary ground that CT acted as DC's delegate. There was no sufficient reason to depart from the usual order that costs follow the event. DC was a necessary party because AFIG's defence required assertion of rights against DC, so CT was liable for DC's costs up to and including the separate question hearing. After judgment, AFIG's investigation of further claims against DC led to the vacated costs hearing and its discontinuance of the cross-claim, so AFIG was liable for DC's costs of the cross-claim and for CT's costs of...

Court Disposition

The defendants were granted leave to discontinue the first cross-claim so far as it concerned the second cross defendant, the balance of the proceedings was dismissed, and costs orders were made between the parties.

Orders

  • ['The defendants have leave to discontinue the first cross-claim so far as it concerns the second cross defendant.' 'The balance of the proceedings be dismissed.' 'The defendants pay the costs of the second cross defendant.' 'The plaintiff pay the costs of the defendants excluding the costs of the appearance before...