Magnate Projects Pty Limited v Youma Constructions Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 388

Magnate Projects Pty Limited v Youma Constructions Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 388

The process for determining the plaintiff's costs under paragraphs 2-7 of the orders of 16 December 2005 was not conditional upon service of a bill of costs by 20 December 2005, and the stays imposed by paragraphs 8(a) and 9(a) did not affect that costs determination process. Most of the bills were within paragraph 2, but Bill No 4 for $3,775.99 related to different proceedings and was excluded, and Youma and/or Mr Marsh were entitled to credit for $20,000 already paid. Because Magnate itself had served the bills significantly late, fairness required a very limited further opportunity for objections, conditional on payment of $45,000 on account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in the Equity Division, Commercial List Concerning Costs Orders and Extension of Time for Objections / Interlocutory Motion; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Time for filing objections was extended to 19 April 2006, conditional upon payment of $45,000 to the plaintiff by the defendant and/or its solicitor; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['construction of Orders' 'extension of Time for Compliance' 'stay of Proceedings' 'determination and Enforcement of Costs']
['courts' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['construction of Orders' 'extension of Time for Compliance' 'stay of Proceedings' 'determination and Enforcement of 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

Notice of Motion in the Equity Division, Commercial List Concerning Costs Orders and Extension of Time for Objections / Interlocutory Motion; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made on 16 December 2005 made the costs determination process conditional upon service of a bill of costs by 20 December 2005.' "Whether the interlocutory and permanent stays under paragraphs 8(a) and 9(a) affected the process for determining the plaintiff's costs under paragraphs 2-7 of the orders of 16 December 2005." 'Whether the bills of costs served by the plaintiff were within paragraph 2 of the orders of 16 December 2005.' 'Whether judgment or a declaration should be made immediately for the claimed costs amount, or whether the defendant and its solicitor should receive a further opportunity to object to assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The process for determining the plaintiff's costs under paragraphs 2-7 of the orders of 16 December 2005 was not conditional upon service of a bill of costs by 20 December 2005, and the stays imposed by paragraphs 8(a) and 9(a) did not affect that costs determination process. Most of the bills were within paragraph 2, but Bill No 4 for $3,775.99 related to different proceedings and was excluded, and Youma and/or Mr Marsh were entitled to credit for $20,000 already paid. Because Magnate itself had served the bills significantly late, fairness required a very limited further opportunity for objections, conditional on payment of $45,000 on account.

Court Disposition

Time for filing objections was extended to 19 April 2006, conditional upon payment of $45,000 to the plaintiff by the defendant and/or its solicitor; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["Subject to and conditional upon the payment by the defendant and/or its solicitor Mr Marsh to the plaintiff of $45,000 by 19 April 2006, as referred to below, on account of their liability and the plaintiff's entitlement to costs, I extend time for the filing of objections, pursuant to order 3 of 16 December 2005,...