Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 626

Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2006] NSWSC 626

The interlocutory injunction application raised two discrete heads: Schedule A property and non Schedule A property. The plaintiffs obtained substantial success on the Schedule A property issue and would generally receive the costs of that issue, while the defendants were entirely successful on the non Schedule A property issue and would receive the costs of that issue. Taking a broad brush approach, about half the costs were attributable to each head, making the parties' respective costs entitlements practically equal. Substantial justice and avoidance of costly assessment were achieved by making no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Costs of Interlocutory Injunction Application / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Injunction Judgment Delivered 27 April 2006
Outcome
No order as to costs of interlocutory injunction application.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'multi Issue Proceedings' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'discrete Issues' 'charitable Trust Property']
['procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'multi Issue Proceedings' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'discrete Issues' 'charitable Trust Property']

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

Equity Proceedings; Costs of Interlocutory Injunction Application / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Injunction Judgment Delivered 27 April 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What order should be made for the costs of the interlocutory injunction application.' 'Whether the Schedule A property issue and the non Schedule A property issue were discrete issues or intertwined.' "Whether the plaintiffs' partial success on the Schedule A property issue justified an order for their costs despite the defendants' success on the non Schedule A property issue." 'Whether a broad brush costs approach should be adopted rather than a detailed assessment of the costs attributable to each issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction application raised two discrete heads: Schedule A property and non Schedule A property. The plaintiffs obtained substantial success on the Schedule A property issue and would generally receive the costs of that issue, while the defendants were entirely successful on the non Schedule A property issue and would receive the costs of that issue. Taking a broad brush approach, about half the costs were attributable to each head, making the parties' respective costs entitlements practically equal. Substantial justice and avoidance of costly assessment were achieved by making no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of interlocutory injunction application.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to the costs of the application.']