Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWSC 661

Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWSC 661

The Court made the gross sum costs order because assessment would be protracted and expensive, the plaintiff was admittedly impecunious, and detailed unchallenged expert evidence supported the claimed amount as a conservative, logical, fair and reasonable estimate of the first defendant's party-party costs. The Court rejected the plaintiff's abuse of process argument because there was no basis to infer that the first defendant brought the application to stifle the appeal rather than to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a lengthy costs assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Gross Sum Costs Order / Notice of Motion Dated 25 January 2012 After Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim and Costs Order Made by Slattery J on 19 May 2011
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted; gross sum costs order made in favour of the first defendant.
Legal Topics
['gross Sum Costs Order' 'party Party Costs' 'assessment of Costs' 'abuse of Process' 'security for Costs on Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['gross Sum Costs Order' 'party Party Costs' 'assessment of Costs' 'abuse of Process' 'security for Costs on Appeal']

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

Interlocutory Application for a Gross Sum Costs Order / Notice of Motion Dated 25 January 2012 After Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim and Costs Order Made by Slattery J on 19 May 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should receive a gross sum costs order pursuant to s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 in respect of costs ordered by Slattery J on 19 May 2011.' "Whether the application for a gross sum costs order was an abuse of process because it was allegedly brought to stifle the plaintiff's appeal." 'Whether the expert evidence provided a logical, fair and reasonable basis for fixing the amount of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the gross sum costs order because assessment would be protracted and expensive, the plaintiff was admittedly impecunious, and detailed unchallenged expert evidence supported the claimed amount as a conservative, logical, fair and reasonable estimate of the first defendant's party-party costs. The Court rejected the plaintiff's abuse of process argument because there was no basis to infer that the first defendant brought the application to stifle the appeal rather than to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a lengthy costs assessment.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted; gross sum costs order made in favour of the first defendant.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 the plaintiff pay the first defendant $563,299.82 in respect of the costs required to be paid pursuant to the order of Slattery J of 19 May 2011.' "The plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant's Notice of Motion of 25 January 2012."]