J T Interior Pty Ltd v Ozzy States Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 48

J T Interior Pty Ltd v Ozzy States Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 48

Because the defendant failed to have the examination order wholly set aside, the plaintiff's original order contained defects that required correction, and the plaintiff had earlier proposed a substantially similar variation that could have avoided contested costs, both parties made a roughly equal contribution to the circumstances generating the interlocutory proceedings; accordingly, no order as to costs was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs on Application to Set Aside an Examination Order / Determination of Costs of the Defendant's Notice of Motion After the Examination Order Was Varied
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'examination Order' 'variation of Examination Order' 'costs Following the Event' 'offer to Vary Order Before Hearing']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'examination Order' 'variation of Examination Order' 'costs Following the Event' 'offer to Vary Order Before Hearing']

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 on Application to Set Aside an Examination Order / Determination of Costs of the Defendant's Notice of Motion After the Examination Order Was Varied

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Who should pay the costs of the defendant's application to set aside the examination order." "Whether the parties' respective success and conduct justified an order for costs where the examination order was varied but not set aside."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant failed to have the examination order wholly set aside, the plaintiff's original order contained defects that required correction, and the plaintiff had earlier proposed a substantially similar variation that could have avoided contested costs, both parties made a roughly equal contribution to the circumstances generating the interlocutory proceedings; accordingly, no order as to costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • ['No order as to the costs of the motion.']