Coshott v Spencer [2019] NSWSC 644

Coshott v Spencer [2019] NSWSC 644

The defendants' motion was necessary due to the defective pleading and inappropriate inclusion of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs should pay those costs on the ordinary basis, but not on indemnity as summary dismissal was improperly sought and only abandoned at the hearing. However, the first plaintiff unreasonably persisted with defective pleadings requiring multiple amendments and failed to comply with procedural requirements, justifying costs on the indemnity basis for the plaintiff’s motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Regarding Pleadings Costs Determination / Post Motion Costs Orders
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the defendants as detailed.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Basis' 'defectively Pleaded Statements of Claim' 'amendments to Pleadings']
['costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Basis' 'defectively Pleaded Statements of Claim' 'amendments to Pleadings']

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

Notice of Motion Regarding Pleadings Costs Determination / Post Motion Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs on the defendants' notice of motion should be paid by the plaintiffs, and if so, on what basis" "Whether costs on the first plaintiff's notice of motion should be paid on an indemnity basis" 'Who should pay costs thrown away by amendments to the statement of claim']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' motion was necessary due to the defective pleading and inappropriate inclusion of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs should pay those costs on the ordinary basis, but not on indemnity as summary dismissal was improperly sought and only abandoned at the hearing. However, the first plaintiff unreasonably persisted with defective pleadings requiring multiple amendments and failed to comply with procedural requirements, justifying costs on the indemnity basis for the plaintiff’s motion.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the defendants as detailed.

Orders

  • ["The costs of the defendants' notice of motion filed 4 December 2018 are to be paid by the plaintiffs on the ordinary basis." "The costs of the first plaintiff's notice of motion filed 15 April 2019 are to be paid by the first plaintiff on an indemnity basis." 'The first plaintiff is to pay the costs thrown away by...