Huang v Attapallil (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1535

Huang v Attapallil (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1535

Leave to discontinue was granted against the first, second and fourth defendants because they consented on the basis that each party pay their own costs, an order more favourable to the plaintiff than the ordinary costs consequence of discontinuance. Leave was refused against the third defendant because discontinuance would not determine the issues and would allow the plaintiff to recommence the same or substantively the same proceedings, causing continuing prejudice to the third defendant who opposed the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Discontinue Proceedings by Notice of Motion / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 6 November 2017
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to discontinue against the first, second and fourth defendants; leave to discontinue against the third defendant refused; motion otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['prerogative Writs and Orders' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['prerogative Writs and Orders' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'costs']

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

Application for Leave to Discontinue Proceedings by Notice of Motion / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 6 November 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to discontinue the proceedings against the first, second, third and fourth defendants.' "What costs orders should be made on the plaintiff's Notice of Motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to discontinue was granted against the first, second and fourth defendants because they consented on the basis that each party pay their own costs, an order more favourable to the plaintiff than the ordinary costs consequence of discontinuance. Leave was refused against the third defendant because discontinuance would not determine the issues and would allow the plaintiff to recommence the same or substantively the same proceedings, causing continuing prejudice to the third defendant who opposed the application.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to discontinue against the first, second and fourth defendants; leave to discontinue against the third defendant refused; motion otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff to discontinue the proceedings against the first, second and fourth defendants.' 'Order each of the plaintiff, first, second and fourth defendants to pay their own costs of the proceedings, including the Notice of Motion.' 'The Motion is otherwise dismissed.' "Order the plaintiff to...