BOSTIK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v LIDDIARD (NO 2) [2009] NSWCA 304

BOSTIK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v LIDDIARD (NO 2) [2009] NSWCA 304

The Court refused the Sanderson order, finding Brolton's conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable or inductive to warrant imposing liability for Bostik's costs. Costs of appeal were apportioned (Mr Liddiard liable for 40%) because the limitation issue was separable and Mr Liddiard succeeded on it. Cross-claims were dismissed, with no order as to their costs, following the outcome of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Appeal Motions for Variation of Costs Orders
Outcome
Varied costs and dispositive orders; motions otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'negligence' 'apportionment of Liability']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['costs' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'negligence' 'apportionment of Liability']

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 / Post Appeal Motions for Variation of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a Sanderson order should be made requiring Brolton to pay Bostik's costs of trial and appeal" "Whether Mr Liddiard's liability for Bostik's costs of appeal should be reduced to reflect partial success" 'Proper orders for costs and disposal of cross-claims']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the Sanderson order, finding Brolton's conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable or inductive to warrant imposing liability for Bostik's costs. Costs of appeal were apportioned (Mr Liddiard liable for 40%) because the limitation issue was separable and Mr Liddiard succeeded on it. Cross-claims were dismissed, with no order as to their costs, following the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Varied costs and dispositive orders; motions otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Vary order (3) made on 26 June 2009: Order the first respondent (Mr Liddiard) to pay 40% of the appellant's costs of the appeal, other than costs attributable to the question of apportionment as between the appellant and the second respondent." 'Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion of the first respondent (Mr...