Crawford Giles and Associates Pty Limited v Spencer Grove Estate Pty Limited and James Edward Spencer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1398

Crawford Giles and Associates Pty Limited v Spencer Grove Estate Pty Limited and James Edward Spencer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1398

Although costs should follow the event, the circumstances as a whole did not justify indemnity costs. Refusal of the second defendant's motion was not itself sufficient; the second defendant was unrepresented, the Court was not prepared to find that he knew the motion had no reasonable prospects of success, and the unexplained delay, while significant for the application, was not of such magnitude as to warrant indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Application by the Plaintiff for Indemnity Costs Following Dismissal of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiff's application for an order for indemnity costs was refused.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'default Judgment' 'notice of Motion' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'delay']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'default Judgment' 'notice of Motion' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'delay']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Application by the Plaintiff for Indemnity Costs Following Dismissal of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the circumstances justified ordering the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the second defendant pursued the motion in circumstances where he knew it had no reasonable prospects of success.' "Whether the second defendant's unexplained delay justified indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although costs should follow the event, the circumstances as a whole did not justify indemnity costs. Refusal of the second defendant's motion was not itself sufficient; the second defendant was unrepresented, the Court was not prepared to find that he knew the motion had no reasonable prospects of success, and the unexplained delay, while significant for the application, was not of such magnitude as to warrant indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application for an order for indemnity costs was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application made on behalf of the plaintiff for an order for indemnity costs is refused.' "The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed."]