Khouri v Nicholas (Costs) [2010] NSWDC 206

Khouri v Nicholas (Costs) [2010] NSWDC 206

Given the plaintiff's limited success (only partial victory on one of several claims), and as the costs liabilities of both parties would effectively cancel each other out, it is appropriate that each party bear their own costs so as to avoid unnecessary expense and comply with the just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Decision Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Each party is to bear their own costs. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for agreed sum including interest.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interest' 'party/party Costs' 'special Costs Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interest' 'party/party Costs' 'special Costs Orders']

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 / Costs Decision Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special costs orders should be made or the parties should bear their own costs' 'Appropriate allocation of costs in mixed-outcome litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the plaintiff's limited success (only partial victory on one of several claims), and as the costs liabilities of both parties would effectively cancel each other out, it is appropriate that each party bear their own costs so as to avoid unnecessary expense and comply with the just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Each party is to bear their own costs. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for agreed sum including interest.

Orders

  • ['Each party is to bear their own costs of the substantive proceedings and of the applications for special costs orders and the interest issue.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $23,765.87 (including interest).' 'Costs order made on 13 July 2010 revoked; replaced by new order...