BEYDOUN v CHILD and ORS [1996] NSWCA 47

BEYDOUN v CHILD and ORS [1996] NSWCA 47

The orders for costs made by the District Court judge were set aside as the precondition for exercising the discretion to otherwise order on costs under Pt19A R9(2) of the District Court Rules was not fulfilled due to absence of an application by the respondent. Even if the discretion had been enlivened, it was not properly exercised as it was not open to both reduce the appellant's costs and require payment of a portion of the respondent's costs; therefore, the appellant was entitled to his costs in accordance with the default operation of the rules.

Parties
Appellant: Beydoun; Respondent: Child and ORS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals upheld
Legal Topics
Offers of Compromise, District Court Rules, Costs Orders, Exercise of Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise District Court Rules Costs Orders Exercise of Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beydoun

Appellant

Child and ORS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was open for the appellant to accept offers of compromise after the conclusion of the hearing but before judgment
  2. 2 Whether the discretion under Pt19A R9(2) of the District Court Rules was properly exercised in relation to costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The orders for costs made by the District Court judge were set aside as the precondition for exercising the discretion to otherwise order on costs under Pt19A R9(2) of the District Court Rules was not fulfilled due to absence of an application by the respondent. Even if the discretion had been enlivened, it was not properly exercised as it was not open to both reduce the appellant's costs and require payment of a portion of the respondent's costs; therefore, the appellant was entitled to his costs in accordance with the default operation of the rules.

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld

Orders

  • Orders for costs made by the District Court set aside
  • In the first proceeding, respondent to pay appellant's costs