Richards v Cornford (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 112

Because only the third respondent participated in the appeal and parties agreed by consent, the costs order should be varied so that only the third respondent is liable for the appellant's costs.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 May 2010
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Appeal Decision
Outcome: Order for consequential amendment to costs order; third respondent to pay appellant's costs
Legal Topics: ['costs' 'appeal' 'variation of Order']

['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeal' 'variation of Order']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

1 ["Who is responsible for payment of the appellant's costs of the appeal"]

Ratio Decidendi

Because only the third respondent participated in the appeal and parties agreed by consent, the costs order should be varied so that only the third respondent is liable for the appellant's costs.

Court Disposition

Order for consequential amendment to costs order; third respondent to pay appellant's costs

Orders

["Order that order 3 made on 10 May 2010 be varied by replacing the word 'respondents' with the words 'third respondent' such that order (3) made on 10 May 2010 and varied today will now read: 'Order that the third respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.'"]