Jensen v Pearce (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 294

Jensen v Pearce (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 294

None of the matters relied on by Ms Pearce warranted departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The allegations about resolution, service and need for a formal hearing were without substance; any extra costs from Mr Jensen's changes in representation would be controlled on assessment; the refusal to allow valuation of Swedish assets was not shown to be unreasonable or to justify adjustment; and the untenable jurisdiction arguments were unlikely to have significantly increased costs and were offset by the absence of a costs order on Mr Jensen's successful cross-claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders as to Costs Following Appeal Concerning a Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) Claim / On the Papers After the Principal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's submissions opposing the proposed trial costs order rejected; costs order made in favour of the defendant on the plaintiff's Property (Relationships) Act claim.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Depart From Ordinary Costs Order' 'costs of Self Represented Litigant' 'trial Costs After Successful Appeal' 'property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'property Relationships'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Depart From Ordinary Costs Order' 'costs of Self Represented Litigant' 'trial Costs After Successful Appeal' 'property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) Claim']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders as to Costs Following Appeal Concerning a Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) Claim / On the Papers After the Principal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was any reason why costs of the trial should not follow the event after the appellant successfully challenged the District Court judgment on the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) claim.' "Whether the appellant's changes of legal representation and self-representation justified departing from the usual costs order." "Whether the appellant's refusal to allow valuation of assets in Sweden justified an adjustment to the costs order." 'Whether legally untenable jurisdictional arguments justified a different costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the matters relied on by Ms Pearce warranted departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The allegations about resolution, service and need for a formal hearing were without substance; any extra costs from Mr Jensen's changes in representation would be controlled on assessment; the refusal to allow valuation of Swedish assets was not shown to be unreasonable or to justify adjustment; and the untenable jurisdiction arguments were unlikely to have significantly increased costs and were offset by the absence of a costs order on Mr Jensen's successful cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's submissions opposing the proposed trial costs order rejected; costs order made in favour of the defendant on the plaintiff's Property (Relationships) Act claim.

Orders

  • ["In lieu of the order as to costs made by the District Court on 28 March 2012, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs with respect to her claim under the Property (Relationships) Act."]