Reid v Wright (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1972

Reid v Wright (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1972

The costs of the proceedings to date should not be treated as costs of the interlocutory transfer applications, and it would not be fair to make that broader order. Although the defendants succeeded in having the proceedings transferred, the plaintiffs were effectively compelled to resist without the protection of undertakings that were only provided on the day of hearing, and the interests of justice were not well served by requiring the plaintiffs alone to bear the burden of considerations such as the strain on health services in Cairns. The appropriate order was therefore that each party pay its own costs of the transfer motions and of the costs dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Negligence Proceedings Following Transfer Application / 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 arising from those motions.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'undertakings' 'limitation Defence Waiver']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'negligence'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'undertakings' 'limitation Defence Waiver']

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 in Negligence Proceedings Following Transfer Application / 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, beyond the costs of the transfer application.' 'Whether the successful defendants should receive their costs of the applications to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland.' 'Whether the parties should bear their own costs of resolving the dispute about costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs of the proceedings to date should not be treated as costs of the interlocutory transfer applications, and it would not be fair to make that broader order. Although the defendants succeeded in having the proceedings transferred, the plaintiffs were effectively compelled to resist without the protection of undertakings that were only provided on the day of hearing, and the interests of justice were not well served by requiring the plaintiffs alone to bear the burden of considerations such as the strain on health services in Cairns. The appropriate order was therefore that each party pay its own costs of the transfer motions and of the costs dispute.

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 arising from those motions.

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...