Youssef Taouk and Najibi Taouk v Najib Louis (No.3) [2014] NSWSC 1117

Youssef Taouk and Najibi Taouk v Najib Louis (No.3) [2014] NSWSC 1117

The plaintiffs' fraud allegations were the foundation of the proceedings and were fanciful in light of evidence that Mrs Taouk knew of and dealt with the loan from 2004 and 2005. The plaintiffs were found to have been willing to give untruthful evidence, the forgery allegations were unsupported by independent evidence, and they must have known they were making false allegations of fraud. That conduct justified varying the prior costs order so that the plaintiffs pay the second and third defendants' costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs; Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Order / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim With Costs
Outcome
Costs order made on 20 June 2014 varied so that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the second and third defendants on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'allegations of Fraud' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'variation of Costs Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'allegations of Fraud' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'variation of Costs Order']

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; Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Order / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made on 20 June 2014 should be varied to require the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the second and third defendants on an indemnity basis for the entire proceedings.' "Alternatively, whether indemnity costs should be ordered from 23 August 2013 by reason of DMS's Calderbank offer." 'Further alternatively, whether indemnity costs should be ordered from 29 March 2014 after an Offer of Compromise made under UCPR r 20.26.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' fraud allegations were the foundation of the proceedings and were fanciful in light of evidence that Mrs Taouk knew of and dealt with the loan from 2004 and 2005. The plaintiffs were found to have been willing to give untruthful evidence, the forgery allegations were unsupported by independent evidence, and they must have known they were making false allegations of fraud. That conduct justified varying the prior costs order so that the plaintiffs pay the second and third defendants' costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Costs order made on 20 June 2014 varied so that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the second and third defendants on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the second and third defendants on an indemnity basis.']