Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Habib (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1870

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Habib (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1870

Notwithstanding the plaintiff's overall success, a differential costs order (40%) is warranted given the limited grounds on which success was obtained; proceedings under s 69 Supreme Court Act are not an 'appeal' for purposes of s 6 Suitors' Fund Act, so certificate refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of CARS Assessment (costs Ruling) / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs and Certificate Under Suitors' Fund Act
Outcome
First defendant to pay 40% of plaintiff's costs, set aside previous costs order, application for Suitors' Fund certificate dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders Variation' 'judicial Review of Administrative (cars) Decisions' "suitors' Fund Act Certificates"]
['costs' 'judicial Review' 'personal Injury'] ['costs Orders Variation' 'judicial Review of Administrative (cars) Decisions' "suitors' Fund Act Certificates"]

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

Judicial Review of CARS Assessment (costs Ruling) / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs and Certificate Under Suitors' Fund Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order should be varied due to limited grounds of plaintiff's success" 'Whether nature of proceedings (judicial review) impacts the costs outcome' "Whether a certificate under s 6 Suitors' Fund Act should be granted in judicial review of CARS assessments"]

Ratio Decidendi

Notwithstanding the plaintiff's overall success, a differential costs order (40%) is warranted given the limited grounds on which success was obtained; proceedings under s 69 Supreme Court Act are not an 'appeal' for purposes of s 6 Suitors' Fund Act, so certificate refused.

Court Disposition

First defendant to pay 40% of plaintiff's costs, set aside previous costs order, application for Suitors' Fund certificate dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 made by the Court on 20 November 2015 be set aside.' "First defendant to pay 40% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including 40% of the costs of the first defendant's notice of motion filed 27 November 2015." 'Notice of motion filed 27 November 2015 be otherwise dismissed.']