Carriage v Stockland Development Pty Ltd & Ors [No 9] [2004] NSWLEC 752

Carriage v Stockland Development Pty Ltd & Ors [No 9] [2004] NSWLEC 752

The application was dismissed because orders that costs be payable forthwith are exceptional and require circumstances such as unreasonable conduct or a demonstrated demand of justice; no evidence or proper explanation was provided to show that justice required the order, and the Applicant's unrelated bankruptcy proceedings did not justify varying the costs order in this litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Urgent Notice of Motion Concerning Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application That Previous Costs Order Be Payable Forthwith
Outcome
Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['costs Payable Forthwith' 'assessment and Payment of Costs' 'discretion as to Costs' 'land and Environment Court Act 1979 S 69' 'supreme Court Rules Pt 52 a R 9']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['costs Payable Forthwith' 'assessment and Payment of Costs' 'discretion as to Costs' 'land and Environment Court Act 1979 S 69' 'supreme Court Rules Pt 52 a R 9']

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

Urgent Notice of Motion Concerning Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application That Previous Costs Order Be Payable Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's costs order made on 20 December 2004 should be payable forthwith." 'Whether justice otherwise demanded an order that costs be payable forthwith under Pt 52A r 9 of the Supreme Court Rules or s 69 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.' "Whether the Applicant's bankruptcy proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court justified varying the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because orders that costs be payable forthwith are exceptional and require circumstances such as unreasonable conduct or a demonstrated demand of justice; no evidence or proper explanation was provided to show that justice required the order, and the Applicant's unrelated bankruptcy proceedings did not justify varying the costs order in this litigation.

Court Disposition

Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 21 December 2004 is dismissed." "The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs in relation to that Notice of Motion."]