Dominic Iacullo and Lillian Iacullo v Luigi Iacullo & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1171

Dominic Iacullo and Lillian Iacullo v Luigi Iacullo & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1171

Because the amendment application produced a mixed result, with the Cross-Claimants succeeding in obtaining leave to amend but on a narrower basis than sought, and the Cross-Defendants succeeding in opposing some but not all significant amendments, the Court should not attempt to apportion costs issue by issue and should make no order as to costs of the motion. The usual order that the Cross-Claimants pay costs thrown away by reason of the amendments remained appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Amendment to Cross Claim / Determination of Costs Following Judgment on Application to Amend Cross Claim
Outcome
No order as to costs of the motion filed on 17 December 2013; Cross-Claimants to pay any costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Cross-Claim made pursuant to leave granted on 4 July 2014.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'mixed Outcome in Proceedings' 'amendment to Cross Claim' 'costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'mixed Outcome in Proceedings' 'amendment to Cross Claim' 'costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Concerning Amendment to Cross Claim / Determination of Costs Following Judgment on Application to Amend Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs of the amendment application should follow the event where the parties had a mixed result.' 'Whether the Cross-Defendants should receive a percentage of their costs of opposing the amendment application.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered in favour of the Cross-Defendants.' 'Whether the Cross-Claimants should pay costs thrown away by reason of amendments to the Cross-Claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amendment application produced a mixed result, with the Cross-Claimants succeeding in obtaining leave to amend but on a narrower basis than sought, and the Cross-Defendants succeeding in opposing some but not all significant amendments, the Court should not attempt to apportion costs issue by issue and should make no order as to costs of the motion. The usual order that the Cross-Claimants pay costs thrown away by reason of the amendments remained appropriate.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the motion filed on 17 December 2013; Cross-Claimants to pay any costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Cross-Claim made pursuant to leave granted on 4 July 2014.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to the costs of the motion filed on 17 December 2013.' 'The Cross-Claimants pay any costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Cross-Claim made pursuant to leave granted on 4 July 2014.']