Alam v Giampietro trading as Legal & Company Solicitors [2023] NSWDC 454

Alam v Giampietro trading as Legal & Company Solicitors [2023] NSWDC 454

The second defendant was entirely successful against all plaintiffs and no party submitted that he should be denied his costs, so costs should follow the event. A Sanderson or Bullock order was refused because, even if it had been reasonable to sue the second defendant, the plaintiffs identified no conduct by the first defendant, such as an assertion that he was not liable because the second defendant was, that made it fair to impose the second defendant's costs on the first defendant. The court also declined to make the third plaintiff solely responsible because the deceased's role in speaking for the plaintiffs was not sufficient to depart from the general principle that unsuccessful...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Motions After Final Orders Disposing of Substantive Professional Negligence Claims
Outcome
The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings and the first and second defendants' costs of the applications and hearing; the motions were otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'multiple Parties' 'bullock Orders' 'sanderson Orders' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs' 'advocates Immunity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'professional Negligence'] ['party/party Costs' 'multiple Parties' 'bullock Orders' 'sanderson Orders' 'joint and Several Liability for Costs' 'advocates Immunity']

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 in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Motions After Final Orders Disposing of Substantive Professional Negligence Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the second defendant's costs after judgment was entered for the second defendant against the plaintiffs." "Whether a Sanderson or Bullock order should be made requiring the first defendant to bear the second defendant's costs." 'Whether the third plaintiff should bear the burden of any costs order in favour of the second defendant.' "Whether any costs order against the second plaintiff should be apportioned by, or stayed pending, related Supreme Court proceedings concerning the deceased's estate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant was entirely successful against all plaintiffs and no party submitted that he should be denied his costs, so costs should follow the event. A Sanderson or Bullock order was refused because, even if it had been reasonable to sue the second defendant, the plaintiffs identified no conduct by the first defendant, such as an assertion that he was not liable because the second defendant was, that made it fair to impose the second defendant's costs on the first defendant. The court also declined to make the third plaintiff solely responsible because the deceased's role in speaking for the plaintiffs was not sufficient to depart from the general principle that unsuccessful...

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings and the first and second defendants' costs of the applications and hearing; the motions were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs are to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings." "The plaintiffs are to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the applications and hearing before me." 'The motions filed by the second defendant on 30 May 2023 and the third plaintiff on 17 July 2023 are otherwise dismissed.' 'The...