Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Andreasen [2005] NSWSC 1312

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Andreasen [2005] NSWSC 1312

The plaintiff was the overall victor in relatively simple litigation and was prima facie entitled to its costs generally. Although the plaintiff changed late in the proceedings from a claim based on a specified minimum of 25 kg per week to one based on an implied term that the defendants would take all their coffee...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Judgment on Costs / After Substantive Judgment, Before Costs Orders and Stay Application
Outcome
The defendants were ordered to pay the successful plaintiff's costs generally, and execution of the judgment was stayed up to and including 28 February 2006.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Whole Action' 'abandoned Claim or Amendment' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'interest on Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'contract'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Whole Action' 'abandoned Claim or Amendment' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'interest on Judgment']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Proceedings; Judgment on Costs / After Substantive Judgment, Before Costs Orders and Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful plaintiff should have its costs of the proceedings generally, including removed District Court proceedings, notwithstanding a late amendment changing the basis of the contractual obligation to take coffee supplies.' 'Whether the defendants should receive a set-off for costs said to be thrown away by abandonment of the claim based on a stipulated minimum of 25 kg of coffee per week, or whether there should be no order as to earlier costs.' 'Whether execution of the judgment should be stayed pending appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was the overall victor in relatively simple litigation and was prima facie entitled to its costs generally. Although the plaintiff changed late in the proceedings from a claim based on a specified minimum of 25 kg per week to one based on an implied term that the defendants would take all their coffee requirements, many issues remained identical or similar throughout the District Court and Supreme Court proceedings and were resolved against the defendants. That change was not sufficient to displace the presumption in favour of a general costs order for the successful plaintiff.

Court Disposition

The defendants were ordered to pay the successful plaintiff's costs generally, and execution of the judgment was stayed up to and including 28 February 2006.

Orders

  • ['The general costs order in favour of the plaintiff was made in accordance with order 2 of the short minutes initialled by the judge and placed with the papers.' 'Execution of the judgment is stayed up to and including 28 February 2006.']