Howland v Ellis [2000] NSWSC 4

Howland v Ellis [2000] NSWSC 4

Although the defendant was unsuccessful on the maintenance claim in her cross-claim, the affidavit and evidence concerning her financial and material circumstances were also relevant to the plaintiff's application for an extension of time and the Court's hardship discretion under section 18(2) of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984. In the context of a four day hearing, no significant part of the evidence or submissions was attributable exclusively to the unsuccessful maintenance claim. It was therefore appropriate that the plaintiff pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Division Proceedings Under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 / Application to Vary Costs Order After Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiff's application to vary the costs order was refused and the provisional orders were confirmed.
Legal Topics
["costs Following Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim" 'costs of Unsuccessful Cross Claim for Maintenance' 'extension of Time' 'hardship Discretion' 'maintenance Under De Facto Relationships Act 1984']
['costs' 'equity' 'de Facto Relationships'] ["costs Following Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim" 'costs of Unsuccessful Cross Claim for Maintenance' 'extension of Time' 'hardship Discretion' 'maintenance Under De Facto Relationships Act 1984']

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 in Equity Division Proceedings Under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 / Application to Vary Costs Order After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs in respect of the defendant's unsuccessful cross-claim for maintenance." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the entirety of the defendant's costs despite the dismissal of the maintenance claim." "Whether evidence directed to maintenance was also relevant to the Court's discretion on the plaintiff's application for an extension of time."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant was unsuccessful on the maintenance claim in her cross-claim, the affidavit and evidence concerning her financial and material circumstances were also relevant to the plaintiff's application for an extension of time and the Court's hardship discretion under section 18(2) of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984. In the context of a four day hearing, no significant part of the evidence or submissions was attributable exclusively to the unsuccessful maintenance claim. It was therefore appropriate that the plaintiff pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application to vary the costs order was refused and the provisional orders were confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The orders, including the costs order, provisionally made on 26 November 1999 are confirmed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendant.']