Joseph Lahoud & Anor v Victor Lahoud & Ors [2006] NSWSC 126

Joseph Lahoud & Anor v Victor Lahoud & Ors [2006] NSWSC 126

The Court ordered indemnity costs only for the issue in the cross-claim concerning the purported 'audit' (from 18 June 2004) because that claim was hopeless but declined to order indemnity costs for the overall proceedings, the abandoned section 106 claim, or interlocutory steps. An order for interest on costs was appropriate despite the limited evidence, with the mechanism for calculation outlined in the judgment.

Parties
First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Joseph Lahoud; Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant: Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Victor Lahoud; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Castle Constructions Pty Ltd; Third Defendant/third Cross Claimant: Solidare Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs and Interest Determination
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered for one issue only; interest on costs ordered; general costs to plaintiffs except as limited; certain applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Interest on Costs, Statute of Frauds, Specific Performance
Civil Procedure Equity Contracts Indemnity Costs Interest on Costs Statute of Frauds Specific Performance

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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Lahoud

First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant

Victor Lahoud

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Castle Constructions Pty Ltd

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Solidare Pty Ltd

Third Defendant/third Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs and Interest Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered for the whole proceedings or in respect of particular issues
  2. 2 Whether interest on costs should be ordered and if so, in what form

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered indemnity costs only for the issue in the cross-claim concerning the purported 'audit' (from 18 June 2004) because that claim was hopeless but declined to order indemnity costs for the overall proceedings, the abandoned section 106 claim, or interlocutory steps. An order for interest on costs was appropriate despite the limited evidence, with the mechanism for calculation outlined in the judgment.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered for one issue only; interest on costs ordered; general costs to plaintiffs except as limited; certain applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay, on an indemnity basis, the costs of the plaintiffs concerning the issue propounded in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 and prayers 7 and 8 of the Amended Notice of Cross-Claim, for costs incurred commencing 18 June 2004.
  • Defendants to pay the costs of the plaintiffs of these proceedings and related proceedings, subject to other orders.