Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 215

Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 215

Because the applicants' motion and summons seeking leave to appeal were dismissed, each respondent had sought costs if leave was refused, and the applicants identified no legitimate basis to deny costs, the applicants were ordered to pay each respondent's costs in this Court; however, because the respondents did not ask for costs when orders were made on 1 July 2016, the order was limited to costs incurred up to and including that date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs; Leave to Appeal / On the Papers Following Dismissal of Motion to Call Further Evidence and Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal
Outcome
In addition to orders 1 and 2 made on 1 July 2016, the applicants were ordered to pay each respondent's costs in this Court up to and including 1 July 2016.
Legal Topics
['costs of Leave to Appeal Proceedings' 'costs to Follow the Event' 'omitted Costs Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Leave to Appeal Proceedings' 'costs to Follow the Event' 'omitted Costs Order']

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; Leave to Appeal / On the Papers Following Dismissal of Motion to Call Further Evidence and Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay each respondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court after the applicants' motion and summons seeking leave to appeal were dismissed." 'Whether any costs order should extend to costs incurred after 1 July 2016, when costs were not sought at the time orders were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants' motion and summons seeking leave to appeal were dismissed, each respondent had sought costs if leave was refused, and the applicants identified no legitimate basis to deny costs, the applicants were ordered to pay each respondent's costs in this Court; however, because the respondents did not ask for costs when orders were made on 1 July 2016, the order was limited to costs incurred up to and including that date.

Court Disposition

In addition to orders 1 and 2 made on 1 July 2016, the applicants were ordered to pay each respondent's costs in this Court up to and including 1 July 2016.

Orders

  • ['Order that the applicants pay the costs of each respondent in this Court up to and including 1 July 2016.']