Georgeski v Owners Corporation SP49833 [2005] NSWSC 311

Georgeski v Owners Corporation SP49833 [2005] NSWSC 311

The amendment of the summons on 6 December 2002 did not involve relevant delinquency by the plaintiff, and the ordinary costs assessment regime was sufficiently flexible to deal with the costs of a submitting defendant; therefore the appropriate order was that the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed, not on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings / Re Opening of Costs Judgment After First Defendant's Costs Submissions Were Found to Have Been Filed But Not Delivered to Chambers
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed; indemnity costs not ordered.
Legal Topics
['submitting Appearance' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'amendment of Summons']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['submitting Appearance' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'amendment of Summons']

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 Decision in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings / Re Opening of Costs Judgment After First Defendant's Costs Submissions Were Found to Have Been Filed But Not Delivered to Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings after the first defendant filed a submitting appearance except as to costs." "Whether the first defendant's costs before filing the submitting appearance should be assessed on the indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment of the summons on 6 December 2002 did not involve relevant delinquency by the plaintiff, and the ordinary costs assessment regime was sufficiently flexible to deal with the costs of a submitting defendant; therefore the appropriate order was that the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed, not on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed; indemnity costs not ordered.

Orders

  • ["In lieu of the decision of 4 February 2004 that there be no order as to the costs of the first defendant, the plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed."]