Koutoulas v Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1556

Koutoulas v Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1556

Although the consent orders represented success for the plaintiffs, the fault leading to that success was not that of the defendant but of the CTTT, and the plaintiffs had shown a noticeable lack of communication before seeking a stay. The later final orders did not warrant reconsidering the 13 September 2013 costs order. The defendant's indemnity costs application also failed because substantive success was against it and the material filed made sufficiently apparent that the plaintiffs' complaint was lack of notice. Nothing justified altering the earlier costs position, so there was no order as to costs of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment After Consent Orders Granting Final Relief Quashing the Cttt's Orders and Remitting the Matter Back to the CTTT
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Where Proceedings Resolved Without Judicial Determination of the Merits' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'stay Application' 'consent Orders']
['costs' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Where Proceedings Resolved Without Judicial Determination of the Merits' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'stay Application' 'consent Orders']

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 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Consent Orders Granting Final Relief Quashing the Cttt's Orders and Remitting the Matter Back to the CTTT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should receive half their costs of the stay application after obtaining final relief by consent.' 'Whether the defendant should receive its costs of the entire proceedings on an indemnity basis.' 'Whether circumstances warranted reconsideration of the costs order made on 13 September 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the consent orders represented success for the plaintiffs, the fault leading to that success was not that of the defendant but of the CTTT, and the plaintiffs had shown a noticeable lack of communication before seeking a stay. The later final orders did not warrant reconsidering the 13 September 2013 costs order. The defendant's indemnity costs application also failed because substantive success was against it and the material filed made sufficiently apparent that the plaintiffs' complaint was lack of notice. Nothing justified altering the earlier costs position, so there was no order as to costs of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to the costs of the proceedings.']