Ranieri v Nominal Defendant & Ors [2001] NSWSC 125

Ranieri v Nominal Defendant & Ors [2001] NSWSC 125

The first defendant delayed admitting liability until the sixth day of trial, after liability had remained in issue for many years, causing wasted court time and needless expense; indemnity costs on liability therefore best served the interests of justice. The second and third defendants were sued by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed against them, so they were entitled to costs against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not show that the first defendant's conduct led to the joinder of those parties or that it was reasonable to join them, so no Bullock or Sanderson order was justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs in Common Law Motor Accident Proceedings / Costs Determination After Earlier Judgments, the First Defendant's Admission of Liability, and Judgments for the Second and Third Defendants Against the Plaintiffs
Outcome
Indemnity costs on liability awarded to the plaintiffs against the first defendant; Bullock or Sanderson order refused; second and third defendants awarded costs against the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'bullock or Sanderson Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'joinder of Defendants' 'cross Claims']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'motor Accidents'] ['indemnity Costs' 'bullock or Sanderson Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'joinder of Defendants' 'cross Claims']

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 in Common Law Motor Accident Proceedings / Costs Determination After Earlier Judgments, the First Defendant's Admission of Liability, and Judgments for the Second and Third Defendants Against the Plaintiffs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs." "Whether the plaintiffs' costs on the question of liability should be assessed on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the first defendant should pay the costs of the second and third defendants by a Bullock or Sanderson order.' 'Whether the second and third defendants, having succeeded against the plaintiffs, were entitled to costs against the plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant delayed admitting liability until the sixth day of trial, after liability had remained in issue for many years, causing wasted court time and needless expense; indemnity costs on liability therefore best served the interests of justice. The second and third defendants were sued by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed against them, so they were entitled to costs against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not show that the first defendant's conduct led to the joinder of those parties or that it was reasonable to join them, so no Bullock or Sanderson order was justified.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs on liability awarded to the plaintiffs against the first defendant; Bullock or Sanderson order refused; second and third defendants awarded costs against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." "The plaintiff's costs, save for the question of liability which are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, are to be assessed on a party and party basis." "The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings." "The...