Lowe & Anor v Tu & Anor (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 438

Lowe & Anor v Tu & Anor (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 438

The plaintiffs were successful in establishing error and obtaining the relief sought, and the uncertainty about the practical effect of the remitted reassessment did not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Reserving costs would deny the plaintiffs' success in establishing their legal right, and a capped costs order was inappropriate because the proposed amount appeared to underestimate the likely costs and lacked evidentiary support.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment / Costs Determined on Written Submissions After the Plaintiffs' Appeal Was Allowed and the Matter Remitted to the Cost Review Panel
Outcome
The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Make Costs Orders' 'costs Assessment' 'review Panel Remittal']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Make Costs Orders' 'costs Assessment' 'review Panel Remittal']

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 Judgment / Costs Determined on Written Submissions After the Plaintiffs' Appeal Was Allowed and the Matter Remitted to the Cost Review Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful plaintiffs should receive their costs of the proceedings under the usual rule that costs follow the event.' "Whether the Court should instead make no order as to costs, reserve costs pending the remittal outcome, or cap the plaintiffs' costs at $10,000."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were successful in establishing error and obtaining the relief sought, and the uncertainty about the practical effect of the remitted reassessment did not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Reserving costs would deny the plaintiffs' success in establishing their legal right, and a capped costs order was inappropriate because the proposed amount appeared to underestimate the likely costs and lacked evidentiary support.

Court Disposition

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings."]