Forgione v Ashurst Australia (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1353

Forgione v Ashurst Australia (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1353

Although many of the plaintiffs' submissions failed and they sought an indulgence to apply outside a statutory time limit, the application was made, resisted, and the plaintiffs were successful. The usual order would have been costs to the successful plaintiffs, but in the circumstances that order was not appropriate; balancing the competing considerations, the proper discretionary order was that each party pay its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Application Pursuant to S 350(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw) (repealed) / Costs Determination on Written Submissions After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
The order that each party pay its own costs was reinstated.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'application Outside Statutory Time Limit' 'costs Assessment']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'application Outside Statutory Time Limit' 'costs Assessment']

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Civil Costs Application Pursuant to S 350(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw) (repealed) / Costs Determination on Written Submissions After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant, although unsuccessful in resisting the plaintiffs' application, should have its costs of the proceedings before the Court." 'Whether the earlier order that each party pay its own costs should be reinstated.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although many of the plaintiffs' submissions failed and they sought an indulgence to apply outside a statutory time limit, the application was made, resisted, and the plaintiffs were successful. The usual order would have been costs to the successful plaintiffs, but in the circumstances that order was not appropriate; balancing the competing considerations, the proper discretionary order was that each party pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

The order that each party pay its own costs was reinstated.

Orders

  • ['The order of 16 September 2016 that each party pay its own costs of the proceedings before me is reinstated.']