Browning v Bitupave Limited (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 81

Browning v Bitupave Limited (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 81

The conduct of the first defendant, particularly its communications and cross claim, directly influenced the plaintiff's decision to join the second defendant; therefore, it is just and reasonable that the first defendant indemnify the plaintiff for costs owed to the second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Consequential Orders Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
Orders made for costs consequences following principal judgment.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'bullock Order' 'contribution and Indemnity']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'bullock Order' 'contribution and Indemnity']

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

Civil / Consequential Orders Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a Bullock order should be made requiring the first defendant to indemnify the plaintiff for the second defendant's costs." "Whether the plaintiff's joinder of the second defendant was reasonable and proper as against the first defendant."]

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of the first defendant, particularly its communications and cross claim, directly influenced the plaintiff's decision to join the second defendant; therefore, it is just and reasonable that the first defendant indemnify the plaintiff for costs owed to the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Orders made for costs consequences following principal judgment.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,040,000.' "Order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs." "Judgment for the second defendant on the plaintiff's claim." "Order the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs of defending the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant."...