Parramatta City Council v Stewart [2013] NSWCA 163

Parramatta City Council v Stewart [2013] NSWCA 163

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the indemnity costs order for all costs of the proceeding to date was described as surprising and arguably more punitive than compensatory, counsel for the Council had been told that such an order could be a condition of the adjournment, did not challenge it, and accepted the adjournment on those terms; on the material before the Court this was not an appropriate case for leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Order of a District Court Judge on Costs / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs as Condition of Adjournment' 'adjournment Application' 'costs Limitations for Personal Injury Damages Claims' 'offer of Compromise' 'leave to Appeal']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['indemnity Costs as Condition of Adjournment' 'adjournment Application' 'costs Limitations for Personal Injury Damages Claims' 'offer of Compromise' 'leave to 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

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Order of a District Court Judge on Costs / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from an order requiring the Council to pay Mr Stewart's costs of the action to date on an indemnity basis as a condition of an adjournment." 'Whether the primary judge erred by making an indemnity costs order for the whole proceeding to date where the proceeding was subject to costs limitations under the Legal Profession Act 2004.' 'Whether the primary judge erred by making a costs order not sought by Mr Stewart, without giving the Council an opportunity to make submissions, without adequate reasons, or in a manifestly excessive and unreasonable manner.' 'Whether Mr Stewart should receive indemnity costs of the application for leave on the basis of an offer to forego costs if the application were withdrawn.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the indemnity costs order for all costs of the proceeding to date was described as surprising and arguably more punitive than compensatory, counsel for the Council had been told that such an order could be a condition of the adjournment, did not challenge it, and accepted the adjournment on those terms; on the material before the Court this was not an appropriate case for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave be refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs." 'The Council pay the costs of Mr Stewart on the ordinary basis.']