Al Maha Pty Ltd v Coplin (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 104

Al Maha Pty Ltd v Coplin (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 104

It was appropriate for Mr Coplin, as the wholly unsuccessful plaintiff, to pay the costs of both defendants at first instance and on appeal. The appellate court was properly vested with power to make the order, and there was no justification for varying the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (variation of Costs Orders in Appeal) / Post Appeal Application
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs' 'appeal' 'party/party Costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeal' 'party/party Costs']

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 (variation of Costs Orders in Appeal) / Post Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether appellate court had power to order plaintiff to pay costs at first instance and on appeal of defendant successful at first instance' 'Whether that power should not be exercised in circumstances where no question of principle arose']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate for Mr Coplin, as the wholly unsuccessful plaintiff, to pay the costs of both defendants at first instance and on appeal. The appellate court was properly vested with power to make the order, and there was no justification for varying the costs order.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ["Dismiss Mr Coplin's notice of motion filed on 21 December 2017." 'Order Mr Coplin to pay the costs of Al Maha and PropertyFox of that motion.']