Liggins & Anor v ParkTrent Properties Group Pty Ltd & Anor (No. 3) [2022] NSWSC 1439
ParkTrent was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs because the plaintiffs' contract claim for breach of the buyback agreement substantially overlapped with both the claim for specific performance and the alternative damages claim, and the unsuccessful issues were not clearly dominant, separable, or a substantial part of the proceedings. The quantum recovered and UCPR r 32.34 did not warrant a different order because specific performance of land was sought and the complexity warranted Supreme Court proceedings. Mr Cross, although successful on the sole misleading and deceptive conduct claim against him, was jointly represented with ParkTrent; applying the common costs rule flexibly, and...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 October 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Consequential Costs Application / Chambers Application After Liability and Damages Judgments
- Outcome
- Costs orders made: the first defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs, and the plaintiffs must pay part of the second defendant's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs Where Plaintiffs Have Mixed Success Against Jointly Represented Defendants' 'common Costs of Multiple Defendants' 'costs Following the Event' 'specific Performance and Damages in Lieu' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct Claim Dismissed']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Consequential Costs Application / Chambers Application After Liability and Damages Judgments
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What costs order should be made in favour of the plaintiffs against ParkTrent where the plaintiffs obtained damages in lieu of specific performance but failed on other claims.' 'What costs order should be made in favour of Mr Cross where the plaintiffs failed on the misleading and deceptive conduct claim against him and both defendants were represented by the same solicitors and counsel.' "Whether the plaintiffs' lack of success on specific performance, misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, the Bundoora property damages claim, or quantum justified reducing their costs against ParkTrent." "Whether Mr Cross' recoverable costs should be limited to costs incurred solely in respect of the misleading and deceptive conduct claim."]
Ratio Decidendi
ParkTrent was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs because the plaintiffs' contract claim for breach of the buyback agreement substantially overlapped with both the claim for specific performance and the alternative damages claim, and the unsuccessful issues were not clearly dominant, separable, or a substantial part of the proceedings. The quantum recovered and UCPR r 32.34 did not warrant a different order because specific performance of land was sought and the complexity warranted Supreme Court proceedings. Mr Cross, although successful on the sole misleading and deceptive conduct claim against him, was jointly represented with ParkTrent; applying the common costs rule flexibly, and...
Court Disposition
Costs orders made: the first defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs, and the plaintiffs must pay part of the second defendant's costs.
Orders
- ["Order the first defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of these proceedings." 'Order the plaintiffs to pay to the second defendant one third of the common costs of the defendants of the proceedings and in addition the plaintiffs should pay any other costs of the second defendant that are referrable to the conduct of...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment