Lorenzato v Lorenzato & Anor (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 790

Lorenzato v Lorenzato & Anor (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 790

The Court declined to make gross sum costs orders because the evidence showed costs incurred but did not provide a sufficient basis, such as costs assessor evidence, to determine what amount would likely be recoverable on assessment rather than the total costs actually incurred. However, the costs thrown away by vacating the hearing were ordered to be paid forthwith because the vacation application was distinct from the substantive issues, the Plaintiff's conduct made it difficult to contest unreasonableness, the hearing had been vacated in circumstances described in the earlier judgment, and immediate payment was not shown to stultify the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Division Proceedings / Application for Gross Sum Costs Orders and for Costs Thrown Away by Vacating the Hearing Date to Be Paid Forthwith
Outcome
Gross sum costs orders were not made; the costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants pursuant to the judgment dated 7 July 2011 were ordered to be paid forthwith as agreed or as assessed.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'interlocutory Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'interlocutory 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Equity Division Proceedings / Application for Gross Sum Costs Orders and for Costs Thrown Away by Vacating the Hearing Date to Be Paid Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Defendants' costs thrown away by vacating the hearing and incidental to the application should be ordered as specified gross sums under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants should be paid forthwith rather than at the conclusion of the proceedings.' "Whether determination of the Defendants' costs should be deferred because the Plaintiff sought to pursue relief against her former solicitor."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to make gross sum costs orders because the evidence showed costs incurred but did not provide a sufficient basis, such as costs assessor evidence, to determine what amount would likely be recoverable on assessment rather than the total costs actually incurred. However, the costs thrown away by vacating the hearing were ordered to be paid forthwith because the vacation application was distinct from the substantive issues, the Plaintiff's conduct made it difficult to contest unreasonableness, the hearing had been vacated in circumstances described in the earlier judgment, and immediate payment was not shown to stultify the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Gross sum costs orders were not made; the costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants pursuant to the judgment dated 7 July 2011 were ordered to be paid forthwith as agreed or as assessed.

Orders

  • ['The costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants pursuant to judgment dated 7 July 2011 be paid forthwith as agreed or as assessed.']