Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors v Kakavas & Ors [2010] NSWSC 62

Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors v Kakavas & Ors [2010] NSWSC 62

Although Mr McCracken failed as a matter of law on the first agreement claim against Mr Kakavas, he comprehensively succeeded on the factual matters and on the claims concerning the second and third agreements, and the legal point on which he failed was a relatively minor part of the proceedings; it was therefore not just to depart from the usual costs order or apportion costs. Mr Kakavas largely failed on his cross claim and achieved only a $2,000 damages award for a minor admitted assault, so the just order was that each side bear its own costs of the cross claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division Proceedings and Cross Claim / Post Judgment Costs Orders Following Judgment Given on 18 December 2009
Outcome
Costs ordered in the terms proposed by Mr McCracken.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'multiple Issues' 'departure From Usual Costs Order' 'costs of Cross Claim' 'nominal Success']
['procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'multiple Issues' 'departure From Usual Costs Order' 'costs of Cross Claim' 'nominal Success']

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 Determination in Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division Proceedings and Cross Claim / Post Judgment Costs Orders Following Judgment Given on 18 December 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event because Mr McCracken failed on the first agreement issue.' "Whether costs should be apportioned in relation to Mr McCracken's failed claim against Mr Kakavas concerning the first agreement." "What costs order should be made on Mr Kakavas' cross claim given his limited success on the admitted assault claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr McCracken failed as a matter of law on the first agreement claim against Mr Kakavas, he comprehensively succeeded on the factual matters and on the claims concerning the second and third agreements, and the legal point on which he failed was a relatively minor part of the proceedings; it was therefore not just to depart from the usual costs order or apportion costs. Mr Kakavas largely failed on his cross claim and achieved only a $2,000 damages award for a minor admitted assault, so the just order was that each side bear its own costs of the cross claim.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in the terms proposed by Mr McCracken.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to pay the second plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed." 'The first cross claimant and the first cross defendant to pay their own costs on the cross claim.']