Jones and Anor v Booth and Anor (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1121

Jones and Anor v Booth and Anor (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1121

The First Defendant was the successful party because the Amended Summons was dismissed on the basis foreshadowed in his solicitors' 28 February 2019 letter; the Supreme Court proceedings were unnecessary and of no utility; and the Plaintiffs' asserted success on comments about s.32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 did not provide a good reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / Application for Costs Following Dismissal of the Amended Summons, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the First Defendant with respect to these proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'dismissal of Summons for Declaratory Relief' 'no Order as to Costs' 'without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offer']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'dismissal of Summons for Declaratory Relief' 'no Order as to Costs' 'without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offer']

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 for Costs Following Dismissal of the Amended Summons, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiffs should pay the First Defendant's costs after the Amended Summons was dismissed." 'Whether there was a good reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event because the Plaintiffs contended they had succeeded on a substantial issue concerning s.32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant was the successful party because the Amended Summons was dismissed on the basis foreshadowed in his solicitors' 28 February 2019 letter; the Supreme Court proceedings were unnecessary and of no utility; and the Plaintiffs' asserted success on comments about s.32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 did not provide a good reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the First Defendant with respect to these proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the First Defendant with respect to these proceedings.']