Steven Faraday v Thomas Gabor Rappaport & 2 Ors [2007] NSWSC 253

Steven Faraday v Thomas Gabor Rappaport & 2 Ors [2007] NSWSC 253

The three proceedings should be considered separately for costs because, although heard together and subject to an order that evidence in one be evidence in the others, they were not consolidated, raised different issues, and involved different degrees of success and failure. In proceeding 2649/02, Mr Faraday was entitled to only part of his costs because he succeeded on a money claim arising from the same factual matrix but failed on substantial property claims, his conduct increased the length and complexity of the hearing to some extent, and the successful claim was raised only by late deemed amendment; the appropriate broad apportionment was one-third of his costs. In proceeding...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings / Following Judgment Delivered on 7 March 2007, After Written and Oral Submissions on Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made separately for the three proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs Across Related Proceedings' 'effect of Late Amendment on Costs' 'conduct Affecting Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs Across Related Proceedings' 'effect of Late Amendment on Costs' 'conduct Affecting 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

Costs Determination in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings / Following Judgment Delivered on 7 March 2007, After Written and Oral Submissions on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs of all three proceedings should be dealt with globally or separately.' 'What costs order should be made in proceedings 2649 of 2002, where Mr Faraday succeeded on a money claim but failed on substantial property claims and raised the successful claim by late deemed amendment.' 'What costs order should be made in proceedings 1684 of 2003, where Mr Faraday succeeded in obtaining return of the title deed to his house.' 'What costs order should be made in proceedings 3668 of 2003, where Rosalia Rappaport failed on or abandoned most claims but obtained limited monetary success.']

Ratio Decidendi

The three proceedings should be considered separately for costs because, although heard together and subject to an order that evidence in one be evidence in the others, they were not consolidated, raised different issues, and involved different degrees of success and failure. In proceeding 2649/02, Mr Faraday was entitled to only part of his costs because he succeeded on a money claim arising from the same factual matrix but failed on substantial property claims, his conduct increased the length and complexity of the hearing to some extent, and the successful claim was raised only by late deemed amendment; the appropriate broad apportionment was one-third of his costs. In proceeding...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made separately for the three proceedings.

Orders

  • ["In proceedings 2649 of 2002, order the defendants pay one-third of the plaintiff's costs." "In proceedings 1684 of 2003, order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of proceedings." 'In proceedings 3668 of 2003, order that there be no order as to costs, with the intent that each party bear his or her own...