Higgins v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 383

Higgins v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 383

The plaintiff succeeded only on the narrow s 55(2A) issue, while the significant bulk of the evidence and three-day hearing concerned claims on which he failed. Because the successful issue would have occupied only half a day, it was fair to award only one-sixth of the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, with no other order as to costs. The earlier settlement offer did not justify indemnity costs because it was made when the Supreme Court relief ultimately obtained was unavailable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Consequential Costs Orders / Costs Consequent Upon Judgment of 16 March 2010
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay one-sixth of the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis, with otherwise no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['departing From the General Rule on Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'conveyancing Act Discretion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['departing From the General Rule on Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'conveyancing Act Discretion']

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

Consequential Costs Orders / Costs Consequent Upon Judgment of 16 March 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be awarded his costs after succeeding only on the claim for exercise of the discretion under s 55(2A) of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' "Whether the plaintiff's settlement offer justified indemnity costs from shortly after the offer." 'Whether costs should be apportioned because the unsuccessful issues occupied the bulk of the evidence and hearing time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff succeeded only on the narrow s 55(2A) issue, while the significant bulk of the evidence and three-day hearing concerned claims on which he failed. Because the successful issue would have occupied only half a day, it was fair to award only one-sixth of the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, with no other order as to costs. The earlier settlement offer did not justify indemnity costs because it was made when the Supreme Court relief ultimately obtained was unavailable.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay one-sixth of the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis, with otherwise no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay one-sixth of the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis, there being otherwise no order as to costs so that the costs should, as to the balance, rest where they fall."]