Spotlight Pty Ltd v Maintek Roofing Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 976

Spotlight Pty Ltd v Maintek Roofing Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 976

Although the applicant was successful on the motion, this was an unusual application and the applicant had told the Court at the hearing that it would be opportunistic to seek an adverse costs order against Fatseas if successful. Fatseas was unsuccessful, but the Court was assisted by the presence of a contradictor and Fatseas' later request for costs was inferred to have followed the applicant's change of position. In those circumstances neither party should presently pay the other's costs, and the appropriate costs order should be determined by the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / On the Papers; Determination of Costs of Motion After Leave for Separate Representation Was Granted
Outcome
Costs of the motion reserved for the trial judge.
Legal Topics
['costs of Motion' 'separate Legal Representation' 'cross Claim' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Reserved']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs of Motion' 'separate Legal Representation' 'cross Claim' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Reserved']

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 Application / On the Papers; Determination of Costs of Motion After Leave for Separate Representation Was Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made after the applicant was granted leave to have separate representation in respect of the second cross-claim.' "Whether Fatseas should pay the applicant's costs of the motion, whether the applicant should pay Fatseas' costs, or whether costs should be reserved for the trial judge."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant was successful on the motion, this was an unusual application and the applicant had told the Court at the hearing that it would be opportunistic to seek an adverse costs order against Fatseas if successful. Fatseas was unsuccessful, but the Court was assisted by the presence of a contradictor and Fatseas' later request for costs was inferred to have followed the applicant's change of position. In those circumstances neither party should presently pay the other's costs, and the appropriate costs order should be determined by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Costs of the motion reserved for the trial judge.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the motion be reserved for the trial judge.']