Russo & Ors v Russo & Ors (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 1133

Russo & Ors v Russo & Ors (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 1133

The Court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) to make a lump sum costs order because the third defendant was unlikely to meet any costs order, a costs assessment would likely be protracted given the Court's experience of the complex proceedings, and the plaintiffs' claimed amount represented a conservative 70 percent of actual costs incurred to 22 April 2015. The plaintiffs established a prima facie liability for the costs and did not need to prove payment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order Under Civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c) / Motion After Previous Costs Orders Against the Third Defendant
Outcome
Lump sum costs order made. Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for costs in the sum of $345,000.31.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs Order' 'specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'impecuniosity' 'complex Litigation']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['lump Sum Costs Order' 'specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'impecuniosity' 'complex Litigation']

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 Application for a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order Under Civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c) / Motion After Previous Costs Orders Against the Third Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make a specified gross sum costs order against the third defendant instead of assessed costs under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c).' "Whether the third defendant's impecuniosity, the complexity of the proceedings and the likelihood of a protracted costs assessment justified a lump sum costs order." 'How the lump sum costs order should be quantified.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) to make a lump sum costs order because the third defendant was unlikely to meet any costs order, a costs assessment would likely be protracted given the Court's experience of the complex proceedings, and the plaintiffs' claimed amount represented a conservative 70 percent of actual costs incurred to 22 April 2015. The plaintiffs established a prima facie liability for the costs and did not need to prove payment.

Court Disposition

Lump sum costs order made. Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for costs in the sum of $345,000.31.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for costs in the sum of $345,000.31.']