HOWLETT v. SAGGERS [1999] NSWSC 445

HOWLETT v. SAGGERS [1999] NSWSC 445

Although the verdict for the successful first plaintiff was below $75,000, the case raised sufficiently complex and novel issues of law to justify proceedings in the Supreme Court, warranting a discretionary order that the first plaintiff have his costs up to the date judgment was reserved; the second plaintiff, having failed, is to pay the defendants' costs of her action, while the costs of the disqualification/application events are to be borne by the parties incurring them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Costs Reserved Following Principal Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Orders as to costs: first plaintiff to have costs against defendants up to disqualification event; second plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of her failed action; parties to bear their own costs for disqualification and costs proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'defamation Damages' 'award of Costs' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'discretion as to Costs']
['torts' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'defamation Damages' 'award of Costs' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'discretion as to 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

Defamation / Costs Reserved Following Principal Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the successful first plaintiff should be awarded costs despite obtaining a verdict below $75,000 in defamation proceedings heard in the Supreme Court under Part 52A Rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules; Whether the second plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs; Whether any party should be awarded the costs of the disqualification issue and costs proceedings; Whether costs should be apportioned on an issue-by-issue basis or generally; Whether the matter was appropriate to be maintained in the Supreme Court given complexity, novelty, and legal significance notwithstanding quantum"]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the verdict for the successful first plaintiff was below $75,000, the case raised sufficiently complex and novel issues of law to justify proceedings in the Supreme Court, warranting a discretionary order that the first plaintiff have his costs up to the date judgment was reserved; the second plaintiff, having failed, is to pay the defendants' costs of her action, while the costs of the disqualification/application events are to be borne by the parties incurring them.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs: first plaintiff to have costs against defendants up to disqualification event; second plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of her failed action; parties to bear their own costs for disqualification and costs proceedings.

Orders

  • ["Second plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of her action, limited as described." "Defendants to pay the first plaintiff's costs up to when Donovan AJ retired from the matter." 'Each party to pay own costs of disqualification and costs proceedings.']