Chinese Australian Services Society Co-operative Limited v Sham-Ho [2012] NSWSC 241

Chinese Australian Services Society Co-operative Limited v Sham-Ho [2012] NSWSC 241

The circumstances warranted departure from the ordinary rule in UCPR 42.7 because the costs order was made personally against non-party solicitors whose role in the proceedings had ended, the interlocutory restraint application was a discrete issue separate from the principal proceedings, the private indemnity arrangement with the defendants did not affect the discretion, and the principal proceedings were not close to finalisation; the order that costs be paid forthwith was an additional order and could be made despite not having been sought when the earlier judgment was delivered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Interlocutory Proceedings Arising From Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion Determined by Written Submissions
Outcome
Application granted; costs ordered to be paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
['costs Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Costs' 'ucpr 42.7' 'variation of Orders' 'conflict of Interest' 'non Party Costs Order Against Solicitors']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'solicitors'] ['costs Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Costs' 'ucpr 42.7' 'variation of Orders' 'conflict of Interest' 'non Party Costs Order Against Solicitors']

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 in Interlocutory Proceedings Arising From Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion Determined by Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs ordered against Proctor Phair Lawyers and Russell Phair in the earlier interlocutory judgment should be paid forthwith under UCPR 42.7 rather than at the conclusion of the principal proceedings.' 'Whether the previous costs order was a discrete aspect of the proceedings and whether factors justified departure from the usual rule for interlocutory costs.' 'Whether any costs arrangement between Proctor Phair Lawyers and the defendants affected the exercise of discretion.' 'Whether the order sought would impermissibly vary the earlier judgment under UCPR 36.16.']

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances warranted departure from the ordinary rule in UCPR 42.7 because the costs order was made personally against non-party solicitors whose role in the proceedings had ended, the interlocutory restraint application was a discrete issue separate from the principal proceedings, the private indemnity arrangement with the defendants did not affect the discretion, and the principal proceedings were not close to finalisation; the order that costs be paid forthwith was an additional order and could be made despite not having been sought when the earlier judgment was delivered.

Court Disposition

Application granted; costs ordered to be paid forthwith.

Orders

  • ["Proctor Phair Lawyers and Russell Phair pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion dated 12 October 2011 forthwith." "Proctor Phair Lawyers and Russell Phair pay the plaintiffs' costs of this application forthwith."]