Reid v Wright (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1965

Reid v Wright (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1965

The defendants' transfer motions were interlocutory applications concerning where the action should be heard, while the substantive proceedings remained to be determined. It would be unfair to treat the costs of the proceedings to date as within the costs of those applications. Although the defendants succeeded in obtaining transfer, the plaintiffs were effectively required to resist the applications until undertakings addressing potential prejudice were given on the hearing day, and the interests of justice considerations included burdens not fairly borne by the plaintiffs alone. The proper order was that each party bear its own costs of the transfer motions and of resolving the costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Arising From Defendants' Applications to Transfer Negligence Proceedings / On Written Submissions After Proceedings Were Transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Parties ordered to pay their own costs of and incidental to the defendants' notices of motion dated 28 February 2011 and 1 March 2011 and of the resolution of the dispute as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'undertakings Addressing Prejudice From Limitation and Pre Litigation Provisions']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'undertakings Addressing Prejudice From Limitation and Pre Litigation Provisions']

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 Determination Arising From Defendants' Applications to Transfer Negligence Proceedings / On Written Submissions After Proceedings Were Transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant should receive its costs of and incidental to the proceedings up to transfer, rather than only costs of the transfer application.' "What costs order should be made for the defendants' successful applications to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland." 'Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to file the affidavit of Mr Roger Betts after the file had been transferred.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' transfer motions were interlocutory applications concerning where the action should be heard, while the substantive proceedings remained to be determined. It would be unfair to treat the costs of the proceedings to date as within the costs of those applications. Although the defendants succeeded in obtaining transfer, the plaintiffs were effectively required to resist the applications until undertakings addressing potential prejudice were given on the hearing day, and the interests of justice considerations included burdens not fairly borne by the plaintiffs alone. The proper order was that each party bear its own costs of the transfer motions and of resolving the costs...

Court Disposition

Parties ordered to pay their own costs of and incidental to the defendants' notices of motion dated 28 February 2011 and 1 March 2011 and of the resolution of the dispute as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs have leave to file the affidavit of Mr Roger Betts sworn 27 February 2013 by delivering it to the chambers of McCallum J.' "The parties pay their own costs of and incidental to the defendants' notices of motion dated 28 February 2011 and 1 March 2011 and of the resolution of the dispute as to costs...