Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Claude Cassegrain & Anor [2012] NSWSC 397

Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Claude Cassegrain & Anor [2012] NSWSC 397

Although the Plaintiffs needed an order that the inquiry should proceed under UCPR r 46.11, the need for substantive argument arose because Mr Claude Cassegrain resisted that order and was ultimately unsuccessful. Consistently with UCPR r 42.1, Oshlack, and the Court's usual practice, costs should follow the event and the First Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs of Motion / Determination in Chambers on Written Submissions as to Costs of an Application Concerning Whether an Inquiry Should Proceed
Outcome
First Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of motion.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Motion' 'inquiry Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 46.11']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Motion' 'inquiry Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 46.11']

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 of Motion / Determination in Chambers on Written Submissions as to Costs of an Application Concerning Whether an Inquiry Should Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the motion heard on 12 March 2012" "Whether costs should follow the event where the First Defendant unsuccessfully resisted the Plaintiffs' application for an order that the inquiry should proceed"]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Plaintiffs needed an order that the inquiry should proceed under UCPR r 46.11, the need for substantive argument arose because Mr Claude Cassegrain resisted that order and was ultimately unsuccessful. Consistently with UCPR r 42.1, Oshlack, and the Court's usual practice, costs should follow the event and the First Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

First Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of motion.

Orders

  • ["The First Defendant, Mr Claude Cassegrain, pay the Plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the motion heard before Black J on 12 March 2012, as agreed or as assessed."]