Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 316

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 316

The plaintiff substantially failed in Ranclose No.2, and the applications determined there were discrete procedural applications that required no assessment of the substantive merits of the parties' cases and were not aligned with issues for final hearing. A final hearing would not cast those interlocutory applications in a different light, and requiring the trial judge later to revisit past procedural disputes would burden judicial time. The plaintiff also sought to reargue matters on which it had failed. Accordingly, no basis was established to vary the costs orders made on 30 June 2021, and except for the costs of the application to vary orders 7 and 8 made on 28 May 2021, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Interlocutory Proceedings / On the Papers Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
The plaintiff's application to have the costs reserved or alternatively made costs in the cause was rejected, and the costs orders made on 30 June 2021 were confirmed.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'reserved Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'reserved Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Civil Costs Interlocutory Proceedings / On the Papers Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion dated 10 June 2021 should be reserved until after final hearing." 'Whether, alternatively, the costs of that notice of motion should be costs in the cause.' 'Whether there was any basis to vary the costs orders made on 30 June 2021.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff substantially failed in Ranclose No.2, and the applications determined there were discrete procedural applications that required no assessment of the substantive merits of the parties' cases and were not aligned with issues for final hearing. A final hearing would not cast those interlocutory applications in a different light, and requiring the trial judge later to revisit past procedural disputes would burden judicial time. The plaintiff also sought to reargue matters on which it had failed. Accordingly, no basis was established to vary the costs orders made on 30 June 2021, and except for the costs of the application to vary orders 7 and 8 made on 28 May 2021, the...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application to have the costs reserved or alternatively made costs in the cause was rejected, and the costs orders made on 30 June 2021 were confirmed.

Orders

  • ["Save for the costs of the application for variation of orders 7 and 8 made on 28 May 2021, which are to be costs in the cause, the plaintiff, as the unsuccessful applicant, is to pay the defendant/cross-claimant's costs of its notice of motion dated 10 June 2021."]