Kearns & Anor v Fair Trading Tribunal of NSW & Anor [2001] NSWSC 1105

Kearns & Anor v Fair Trading Tribunal of NSW & Anor [2001] NSWSC 1105

There was no accidental slip or omission in the order that costs follow the event. The Court intended to order costs against the defendant because he had opposed the plaintiffs' relief, even if it expected that the Suitors Fund certificate would prevent him being out of pocket. Part 20 Rule 10 and Part 1 Rule 3 did not provide jurisdiction to reopen the matter or impose a capped costs order after the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Correct or Amend Costs Order and Suitors Fund Certificate / Hearing in Chambers After Orders Made on 25 October 2001
Outcome
Amendment refused
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'suitors Fund Certificate' 'party Party Costs' 'natural Justice']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'administrative Law'] ['slip Rule' 'suitors Fund Certificate' 'party Party Costs' 'natural Justice']

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

Application to Correct or Amend Costs Order and Suitors Fund Certificate / Hearing in Chambers After Orders Made on 25 October 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order and Suitors Fund certificate should be corrected or amended under Part 20 Rule 10.' 'Whether Part 1 Rule 3 permitted qualifications to be applied to the existing costs orders because the Suitors Fund indemnity was capped.' "Whether the defendant's liability for the plaintiffs' costs should be limited to the balance of the maximum indemnity available under the Suitors Fund certificate."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no accidental slip or omission in the order that costs follow the event. The Court intended to order costs against the defendant because he had opposed the plaintiffs' relief, even if it expected that the Suitors Fund certificate would prevent him being out of pocket. Part 20 Rule 10 and Part 1 Rule 3 did not provide jurisdiction to reopen the matter or impose a capped costs order after the event.

Court Disposition

Amendment refused

Orders

  • ['The application to vary the orders made on 25 October 2001 was declined.' 'No order was made in respect of the costs of the attendance in chambers.']