Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic [2013] NSWSC 909

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic [2013] NSWSC 909

The plaintiff had duly and expeditiously prosecuted its costs assessment, its interest calculation was consistent with the methodology in Lahoud, and the evidence established that it had been out of pocket for legal fees. A gross sum costs order was appropriate, but the amount was discounted to 75 per cent of the claimed motion costs to account for assessment risk. The respondent's procedural objections were rejected because Nicholas J had already ruled that proper notice had been given and Dr Zepinic had declined to accept the exhibits when offered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Notice of Motion for Interest on Assessed Costs and Gross Sum Costs
Outcome
The Court makes orders 1, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion, and an order that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the costs of the Notice of Motion fixed on a gross sum basis at $26,722.13.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Costs' 'interest on Costs After Judgment' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'discount for Assessment Risk']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['assessment of Costs' 'interest on Costs After Judgment' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'discount for Assessment Risk']

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

Costs Application / Notice of Motion for Interest on Assessed Costs and Gross Sum Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should receive interest on assessed costs under s 101(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the Court should fix a specified gross sum for the costs of the notice of motion under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' "Whether evidence should be received despite the second respondent's objection concerning service and notice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had duly and expeditiously prosecuted its costs assessment, its interest calculation was consistent with the methodology in Lahoud, and the evidence established that it had been out of pocket for legal fees. A gross sum costs order was appropriate, but the amount was discounted to 75 per cent of the claimed motion costs to account for assessment risk. The respondent's procedural objections were rejected because Nicholas J had already ruled that proper notice had been given and Dr Zepinic had declined to accept the exhibits when offered.

Court Disposition

The Court makes orders 1, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion, and an order that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the costs of the Notice of Motion fixed on a gross sum basis at $26,722.13.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 in the notice of motion filed 13 March 2013 is made.' 'The defendants pay to the plaintiff its costs of and incidental to the motion in an amount of 75 per cent of $35,629.50, fixed at $26,722.13.' 'Orders 3 and 4 in the notice of motion filed 13 March 2013 are made.']