Todarello Property Investments Pty Ltd v GJA Kalra Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 379

Todarello Property Investments Pty Ltd v GJA Kalra Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 379

Because the defendant succeeded on two of the three principal issues and therefore enjoyed more success than the plaintiff, but the plaintiff succeeded on the rent and outgoings issue and had an existing costs order arising from the defendant's belated evidence causing an adjournment, the appropriate order was that the plaintiff pay 50% of the defendant's costs while the 16 June 2021 costs order in favour of the plaintiff remained in force.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs in Proceedings Between Landlord and Tenant / Costs Determined on the Papers After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay half of the defendant's costs; existing costs order in favour of the plaintiff remains in force.
Legal Topics
['mixed Success on Principal Issues' 'costs Orders' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'lease Termination' 'renewed Lease Option' 'rent and Outgoings']
['costs' 'equity' 'landlord and Tenant'] ['mixed Success on Principal Issues' 'costs Orders' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'lease Termination' 'renewed Lease Option' 'rent and Outgoings']

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 Proceedings Between Landlord and Tenant / Costs Determined on the Papers After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs, each party should bear its own costs, or some other costs order should be made after mixed success in the proceedings." 'Whether the existing costs order made on 16 June 2021 in favour of the plaintiff should remain in force.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant succeeded on two of the three principal issues and therefore enjoyed more success than the plaintiff, but the plaintiff succeeded on the rent and outgoings issue and had an existing costs order arising from the defendant's belated evidence causing an adjournment, the appropriate order was that the plaintiff pay 50% of the defendant's costs while the 16 June 2021 costs order in favour of the plaintiff remained in force.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay half of the defendant's costs; existing costs order in favour of the plaintiff remains in force.

Orders

  • ["Order that the plaintiff/cross-defendant pay 50% of the defendant/cross-claimant's costs of the proceedings; and" 'Note that the costs order made on 16 June 2021 in favour of the plaintiff remains in force.']