Welker v Rinehart [2012] NSWSC 1637

Welker v Rinehart [2012] NSWSC 1637

The plaintiffs were substantially successful across the motions heard on 12 September 2012, including opposing mediation, opposing summary dismissal, obtaining leave to amend, and setting aside a notice to produce. However, their failure on the forthwith costs order application, their failure on the capital gains tax aspect of the leave to amend application, and the indulgent character of leave to amend justified reducing their costs recovery. No distinction was warranted between the defendants because the second defendant supported the summary dismissal application and opposed leave to amend on related grounds. Justice was done by ordering the defendants to pay 80 per cent of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination Following Motions Heard on 12 September 2012
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay 80 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the motions heard on, and proceedings on, 12 September 2012.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Motions' 'apportionment of Costs' 'leave to Amend' 'summary Dismissal' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Motions' 'apportionment of Costs' 'leave to Amend' 'summary Dismissal' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / Costs Determination Following Motions Heard on 12 September 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made for the motions heard on, and proceedings on, 12 September 2012.' 'Whether separate costs orders should be made for each motion heard on 12 September 2012.' 'Whether any distinction should be drawn between the first and second defendants in respect of liability for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were substantially successful across the motions heard on 12 September 2012, including opposing mediation, opposing summary dismissal, obtaining leave to amend, and setting aside a notice to produce. However, their failure on the forthwith costs order application, their failure on the capital gains tax aspect of the leave to amend application, and the indulgent character of leave to amend justified reducing their costs recovery. No distinction was warranted between the defendants because the second defendant supported the summary dismissal application and opposed leave to amend on related grounds. Justice was done by ordering the defendants to pay 80 per cent of the...

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay 80 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the motions heard on, and proceedings on, 12 September 2012.

Orders

  • ["The defendants pay 80 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the motions heard on, and proceedings on, 12 September 2012."]