Rissanen v Nunan [2019] NSWSC 418

Rissanen v Nunan [2019] NSWSC 418

The defendants obtained a measure of success on their notices of motion because the plaintiffs repeatedly and materially amended defective pleadings in response to the defendants' motions and materials, ultimately producing a pleading adequate according to the rules. It was therefore appropriate for the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the motions. A separate costs thrown away order was refused because it would risk double accounting with the motion costs order. Costs payable forthwith were refused because, although the pleading issues were discrete and the proceedings might continue for some time, the plaintiffs were self-represented, had genuinely attempted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings Concerning Estate Administration / Determination of Costs After Defendants' Notices of Motion Were Resolved by Consent Following Service of Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants awarded costs of the notices of motion; application for costs thrown away and for costs payable forthwith refused.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Notices of Motion' 'pleading Amendments' 'costs Thrown Away' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'self Represented Litigants']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity' 'trusts and Estates'] ['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Notices of Motion' 'pleading Amendments' 'costs Thrown Away' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'self Represented Litigants']

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 Equity Proceedings Concerning Estate Administration / Determination of Costs After Defendants' Notices of Motion Were Resolved by Consent Following Service of Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 6 August 2018 and amended notice of motion filed on 19 October 2018." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs thrown away by reason of amendments to the pleadings." 'Whether any costs order should be payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants obtained a measure of success on their notices of motion because the plaintiffs repeatedly and materially amended defective pleadings in response to the defendants' motions and materials, ultimately producing a pleading adequate according to the rules. It was therefore appropriate for the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the motions. A separate costs thrown away order was refused because it would risk double accounting with the motion costs order. Costs payable forthwith were refused because, although the pleading issues were discrete and the proceedings might continue for some time, the plaintiffs were self-represented, had genuinely attempted...

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded costs of the notices of motion; application for costs thrown away and for costs payable forthwith refused.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of, and incidental to, the notice of motion filed on 6 August 2018 and amended notice of motion filed on 19 October 2018."]