Daher v Gold & Eagle Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 151

Daher v Gold & Eagle Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 151

The court determined that costs should follow the event, as the additional costs related to the second defendant were minimal and not sufficient to justify a different costs order. In recognition of the insignificant size of these costs and to avoid disproportionate expense, a fixed gross sum costs order was appropriate under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Daher; First Defendant: Gold & Eagle Constructions Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Steven Miller
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Judgment / Post Judgment Determination of Costs
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant with costs; judgment for second defendant with costs in specified gross sum; costs orders as detailed
Legal Topics
Costs, Work Accident, Costs Follow the Event, Gross Sum Costs Order
Civil Procedure Costs Work Accident Costs Follow the Event Gross Sum Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Daher

Plaintiff

Gold & Eagle Constructions Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Steven Miller

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Judgment / Post Judgment Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order other than the general rule should apply to the second defendant, given representation and indemnity issues and the likely insignificant costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that costs should follow the event, as the additional costs related to the second defendant were minimal and not sufficient to justify a different costs order. In recognition of the insignificant size of these costs and to avoid disproportionate expense, a fixed gross sum costs order was appropriate under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant with costs; judgment for second defendant with costs in specified gross sum; costs orders as detailed

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $1,203,546.50.
  • Order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.