Hach Private Capital Pty Ltd v Dahata Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 115

Hach Private Capital Pty Ltd v Dahata Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 115

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's costs orders rested on an independent discretionary basis that the respondents had achieved a substantial measure of success and costs should follow the event. The applicants were on notice that costs of the proceeding were sought, the ordinary costs discretion was raised at the hearing, and no denial of procedural fairness or clear injustice going beyond an arguable error was established. Any possible issues of principle about the offer of compromise rules did not justify leave because they did not affect that independent basis for the decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Costs Orders / Court of Appeal Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'offers of Compromise' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs Following the Event' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'offers of Compromise' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs Following the Event' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)']

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 Costs Orders / Court of Appeal Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from orders as to costs only.' 'Whether the accepted offers of compromise complied with UCPR r 20.26 and attracted UCPR r 42.13A.' 'Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness by determining costs on the ordinary basis when the applications before him concerned the offers of compromise.' "Whether the primary judge's independent discretionary costs reasoning disclosed clear injustice, error of principle or an issue of general importance."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's costs orders rested on an independent discretionary basis that the respondents had achieved a substantial measure of success and costs should follow the event. The applicants were on notice that costs of the proceeding were sought, the ordinary costs discretion was raised at the hearing, and no denial of procedural fairness or clear injustice going beyond an arguable error was established. Any possible issues of principle about the offer of compromise rules did not justify leave because they did not affect that independent basis for the decision.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']