CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] NSWLEC 83

CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] NSWLEC 83

The court determined that, given the complexity and the particular procedural circumstances, including active agreements between main parties regarding costs, the passive role played by the surveyors and certifiers, and the justification for their joinder, the proper exercise of discretion under s 98 Civil Procedure Act and r 42.1 UCPR requires that each of CRIC, the surveyors, and the certifiers bear their own costs, with no orders as to costs amongst them. The application by the surveyors to amend reasons for judgment was refused, as no slip or error justified amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
No orders as to costs among certain parties; amendment application refused; exhibits may be returned.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'joinder of Parties' 'discretion in Costs Orders' 'abuse of Process' 'judgment Amendment (slip Rule)']
['civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['costs' 'joinder of Parties' 'discretion in Costs Orders' 'abuse of Process' 'judgment Amendment (slip Rule)']

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 4 Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate orders for costs among multiple parties including joined parties' 'Whether amendment to reasons for judgment should be permitted' 'Whether costs of joinder application should be awarded to CRIC' 'Whether surveyors and certifiers should get costs from CRIC or vice versa' 'Impact of party inactivity and procedural fairness on costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, given the complexity and the particular procedural circumstances, including active agreements between main parties regarding costs, the passive role played by the surveyors and certifiers, and the justification for their joinder, the proper exercise of discretion under s 98 Civil Procedure Act and r 42.1 UCPR requires that each of CRIC, the surveyors, and the certifiers bear their own costs, with no orders as to costs amongst them. The application by the surveyors to amend reasons for judgment was refused, as no slip or error justified amendment.

Court Disposition

No orders as to costs among certain parties; amendment application refused; exhibits may be returned.

Orders

  • ['As between the Applicant and each of the First Respondent to Fourth Respondent (inclusive), there will be no order as to costs.' "The Applicant's Notice of Motion filed 8 May 2012 is dismissed with no order as to costs." 'The application by the Sixth and Seventh Respondents to amend [106] of the reasons for...