Coat v Aves (No 2) (Pseudonyms) [2024] NSWDC 87

Coat v Aves (No 2) (Pseudonyms) [2024] NSWDC 87

The defendant was entitled to costs because he succeeded and obtained an outcome more favourable than the valid offers of compromise the plaintiff rejected; in the credit-based dispute only one party could succeed, making it fair and just to award ordinary costs to 25 January 2022 and indemnity costs from 26 January 2022. The requested variation of the non-publication order could not be granted because s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth) restricted publication identifying the relevant persons and this Court lacked power to make the facilitative order sought. The gross sum costs and third party costs applications were deferred pending further procedural steps.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Consequential Orders and Costs Application / Post Judgment After Dispositive Decision in Favour of the Defendant
Outcome
Indemnity costs application granted in part; non-publication variation not granted; gross sum costs and third party costs applications stood over.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Order' 's 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (cwth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs' 'third Party Costs Order Against Former Legal Advisors']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'family Law Publication Restrictions'] ['non Publication Order' 's 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (cwth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs' 'third Party Costs Order Against Former Legal Advisors']

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

Civil Consequential Orders and Costs Application / Post Judgment After Dispositive Decision in Favour of the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the non-publication order could be varied to enable the defendant to identify parties and inform relevant persons of his vindication.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis because she did not accept valid offers of compromise." "Whether the defendant's costs should be fixed as a specified gross sum." "Whether the plaintiff's former legal advisors should be ordered to pay the defendant's assessed costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was entitled to costs because he succeeded and obtained an outcome more favourable than the valid offers of compromise the plaintiff rejected; in the credit-based dispute only one party could succeed, making it fair and just to award ordinary costs to 25 January 2022 and indemnity costs from 26 January 2022. The requested variation of the non-publication order could not be granted because s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth) restricted publication identifying the relevant persons and this Court lacked power to make the facilitative order sought. The gross sum costs and third party costs applications were deferred pending further procedural steps.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs application granted in part; non-publication variation not granted; gross sum costs and third party costs applications stood over.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 98(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 25 January 2022, and on an indemnity basis from 26 January 2022." "The defendant's application for a gross sum costs order and a third party costs order against...