Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 36

Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 36

Ms Corbett, as successful defendant in contempt proceedings, was entitled to her costs of the discrete questions removed to the Court of Appeal, as her participation was reasonable and she did not engage in disentitling conduct. Mr Gaynor, despite ultimate success on the dispositive issue, was not entitled to a costs order due to the unnecessary expansion of proceedings, excessive materials, failure on additional arguments, and the principle that costs must be reasonably incurred to obtain the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Application / Determination of Costs Following Judgment on Threshold Issue
Outcome
Partial costs awarded; Ms Corbett awarded costs, Mr Gaynor bears own costs and pays Mr Burns' costs of specific application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'diversity Jurisdiction' 'contempt Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ['costs' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'diversity Jurisdiction' 'contempt Proceedings']

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

Appeal / Costs Application / Determination of Costs Following Judgment on Threshold Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Entitlement to costs following threshold decision that NCAT lacked authority over inter-state respondents' 'Whether qualified success entitles a party to costs' 'Whether expansion of proceedings and additional submissions affect cost orders' 'Appropriate exercise of discretion under s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and relevant rules']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Corbett, as successful defendant in contempt proceedings, was entitled to her costs of the discrete questions removed to the Court of Appeal, as her participation was reasonable and she did not engage in disentitling conduct. Mr Gaynor, despite ultimate success on the dispositive issue, was not entitled to a costs order due to the unnecessary expansion of proceedings, excessive materials, failure on additional arguments, and the principle that costs must be reasonably incurred to obtain the result.

Court Disposition

Partial costs awarded; Ms Corbett awarded costs, Mr Gaynor bears own costs and pays Mr Burns' costs of specific application.

Orders

  • ["In Burns v Corbett (proceeding 2016/224875) Mr Burns to pay Ms Corbett's costs of the questions removed to the Court of Appeal, including costs of her notice of motion filed 13 February 2017." "In Gaynor v Burns (proceedings 2015/251109 and 2016/204768) Mr Gaynor to pay Mr Burns' costs of Mr Gaynor's notice of...