Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 705

Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 705

A contrary order was justified because, when the proceedings were commenced and when the s7A trial occurred, the District Court did not have a special defamation list, and the proceeding involved extensive factual questions and quite complex transactions, including substantial documentary and oral evidence and the defence of contextual truth. It was appropriate for the plaintiff to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court, so the costs to which he was entitled should not be reduced by reference to Pt 52A r33.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Costs Determination After Damages Award
Outcome
Costs not reduced under Pt 52A r33; costs order to encompass retention of two counsel; defendant to pay specified costs; plaintiff to bring in short minutes of order.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'costs Reduction Under Supreme Court Rules Part 52 a Rule 33' 'retention of Two Counsel' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['damages' 'costs Reduction Under Supreme Court Rules Part 52 a Rule 33' 'retention of Two Counsel' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth']

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

Defamation / Costs Determination After Damages Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's costs should be reduced under Supreme Court Rules Pt 52A r33 because the damages awarded were not more than $150,000." "Whether the plaintiff's costs should encompass the retention of two counsel." "Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs in relation to the notice of motion filed on 23 July 2003 and the costs of 31 July 2003."]

Ratio Decidendi

A contrary order was justified because, when the proceedings were commenced and when the s7A trial occurred, the District Court did not have a special defamation list, and the proceeding involved extensive factual questions and quite complex transactions, including substantial documentary and oral evidence and the defence of contextual truth. It was appropriate for the plaintiff to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court, so the costs to which he was entitled should not be reduced by reference to Pt 52A r33.

Court Disposition

Costs not reduced under Pt 52A r33; costs order to encompass retention of two counsel; defendant to pay specified costs; plaintiff to bring in short minutes of order.

Orders

  • ['The costs to which the plaintiff is entitled are not to be reduced by reference to Pt 52A r33.' 'The award of costs is to encompass the retention of two counsel.' 'The defendant is to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in relation to the notice of motion filed on 23 July 2003.' 'The defendant is to pay the...