Ahmad v Mohamed (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1532

Ahmad v Mohamed (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1532

The costs of the Motion should not be reserved because the relevant event was the successful stay application, which was substantively argued and determined independently of the merits of the FCFCOA proceedings. However, because the defendant/applicant abandoned the transfer relief late and the plaintiffs/respondents incurred avoidable costs preparing argument on transfer, the defendant/applicant should recover only 75% of her costs of the Notice of Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / On the Papers; Application for a Different Costs Order Following Interlocutory Stay Orders Made on 24 October 2022
Outcome
Order 2 made on 24 October 2022 was vacated; the respondents were ordered to pay 75% of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion; no order was made as to costs of the respondents' application for a different costs order.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Interlocutory Motion' 'stay of Proceedings' 'federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Proceedings' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Interlocutory Motion' 'stay of Proceedings' 'federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Proceedings' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)']

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 in Equity Proceedings / On the Papers; Application for a Different Costs Order Following Interlocutory Stay Orders Made on 24 October 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs of the Notice of Motion should be reserved rather than ordered in favour of the defendant/applicant.' "Whether the defendant/applicant's costs should be reduced because transfer relief was abandoned late and the plaintiffs/respondents incurred costs addressing transfer, constitutional and jurisdictional issues."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs of the Motion should not be reserved because the relevant event was the successful stay application, which was substantively argued and determined independently of the merits of the FCFCOA proceedings. However, because the defendant/applicant abandoned the transfer relief late and the plaintiffs/respondents incurred avoidable costs preparing argument on transfer, the defendant/applicant should recover only 75% of her costs of the Notice of Motion.

Court Disposition

Order 2 made on 24 October 2022 was vacated; the respondents were ordered to pay 75% of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion; no order was made as to costs of the respondents' application for a different costs order.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 made on 24 October 2022 is vacated.' "The respondents are to pay 75% of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or as assessed." "No order as to costs of the respondents' application for a different costs order than that provided in the substantive judgment."]