Care v Veraz Enterprises Pty Limited [2016] NSWLEC 46

Care v Veraz Enterprises Pty Limited [2016] NSWLEC 46

Although there was no event identifying a successful and an unsuccessful party, the applicant caused the First Respondent to incur expense in preparing to defend proceedings that the applicant commenced, continued for some time, and then discontinued after an unsuccessful mediation. Because the mediation was a jointly taken step by consent to resolve the proceedings, each party should bear its own mediation costs. The just order was that the applicant pay the First Respondent's party-party costs, including costs of submissions on costs, but excluding mediation costs, with no order for or against the inactive Second Respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Application Seeking Relief Under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 / Costs Determination on the Papers After Discontinuance by Consent Following Unsuccessful Mediation
Outcome
The Applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs as defined by the Court, with no order for costs in favour of or against the Second Respondent.
Legal Topics
['encroachment Proceedings' 'discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'mediation Costs']
['costs' 'property Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['encroachment Proceedings' 'discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'mediation 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

Class 3 Application Seeking Relief Under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 / Costs Determination on the Papers After Discontinuance by Consent Following Unsuccessful Mediation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the First Respondent's costs after discontinuing Class 3 encroachment proceedings." 'Whether costs should include costs of the private mediation.' 'Whether any costs order should be made for or against the inactive Second Respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was no event identifying a successful and an unsuccessful party, the applicant caused the First Respondent to incur expense in preparing to defend proceedings that the applicant commenced, continued for some time, and then discontinued after an unsuccessful mediation. Because the mediation was a jointly taken step by consent to resolve the proceedings, each party should bear its own mediation costs. The just order was that the applicant pay the First Respondent's party-party costs, including costs of submissions on costs, but excluding mediation costs, with no order for or against the inactive Second Respondent.

Court Disposition

The Applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs as defined by the Court, with no order for costs in favour of or against the Second Respondent.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's party-party costs, as agreed or assessed, including the First Respondent's costs of making submissions on the costs issue, but not including its costs in respect of the mediation." 'No order for costs in favour of, or against, the inactive Second Respondent.']