Sweetman v Ritter (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 112

Sweetman v Ritter (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 112

Although the plaintiff succeeded, the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, the application was required because the limitation period had expired, the need for the application was within the plaintiff's side's power to avoid, the summons itself sought costs in the cause unless contested, and rule 42.7...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Pursuant to S 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 / Costs and Consequential Orders After Leave Granted
Outcome
The plaintiff was given leave to file a statement of claim and rule 15 particulars by 4 July 2014, and the costs of the summons were ordered to be costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'costs Following the Event' 'costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'filing Statement of Claim and Rule 15 Particulars']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'motor Accidents Compensation'] ['application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'costs Following the Event' 'costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'filing Statement of Claim and Rule 15 Particulars']

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

Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Pursuant to S 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 / Costs and Consequential Orders After Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons on the ordinary basis or whether there should be no order as to costs." 'Whether the plaintiff should have time to file a statement of claim and rule 15 particulars.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff succeeded, the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, the application was required because the limitation period had expired, the need for the application was within the plaintiff's side's power to avoid, the summons itself sought costs in the cause unless contested, and rule 42.7 relating to interlocutory applications was relevant. Balancing those factors, the proper order was that the costs of the summons be costs in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was given leave to file a statement of claim and rule 15 particulars by 4 July 2014, and the costs of the summons were ordered to be costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff have leave to file a statement of claim and rule 15 particulars by 4 July 2014.' 'Order that the costs of the summons be costs in the proceedings.']