Chapman v. Taylor & Ors; Vero Insurance Ltd. v. Taylor & Ors (No.3) [2005] NSWCA 95

Chapman v. Taylor & Ors; Vero Insurance Ltd. v. Taylor & Ors (No.3) [2005] NSWCA 95

Vero was entitled to have the orders corrected to include its costs before the Master and to clarify that fees for work performed by Senior Counsel could be recovered at Junior Counsel rates, but the prior limitation excluding Senior Counsel fees should remain because of the disproportion between the costs and the amount in issue, the duplication of costs by defendants with substantially coinciding interests, and Vero's wider commercial interest in the legal point. Vero should not recover costs incurred after the 9 February 2005 judgment because the further submissions could and should have been made earlier and the omission about costs before the Master could have been raised without...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Further Judgment on Costs Dealt With on Written Submissions in Chambers
Outcome
Order 4 made on 9 February 2005 was vacated and replaced; Vero obtained costs before the Master and of the appeal assessed on a Junior Counsel basis, with no order for costs incurred after 9 February 2005.
Legal Topics
['proportionality of Costs' 'senior Counsel Fees' 'separate Costs of Parties With Substantially Similar Interests' "suitors' Fund Act Certificate" 'appeal Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'insurance'] ['proportionality of Costs' 'senior Counsel Fees' 'separate Costs of Parties With Substantially Similar Interests' "suitors' Fund Act Certificate" 'appeal 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Further Judgment on Costs Dealt With on Written Submissions in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order made on 9 February 2005 should be varied after Vero's further submissions and evidence." 'Whether Vero should recover costs before the Master as well as costs of the appeal.' "Whether the Taylors should pay Vero's costs assessed on the basis of Senior Counsel fees or only fees appropriate to Junior Counsel." 'Whether Vero should recover costs incurred after delivery of judgment on 9 February 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

Vero was entitled to have the orders corrected to include its costs before the Master and to clarify that fees for work performed by Senior Counsel could be recovered at Junior Counsel rates, but the prior limitation excluding Senior Counsel fees should remain because of the disproportion between the costs and the amount in issue, the duplication of costs by defendants with substantially coinciding interests, and Vero's wider commercial interest in the legal point. Vero should not recover costs incurred after the 9 February 2005 judgment because the further submissions could and should have been made earlier and the omission about costs before the Master could have been raised without...

Court Disposition

Order 4 made on 9 February 2005 was vacated and replaced; Vero obtained costs before the Master and of the appeal assessed on a Junior Counsel basis, with no order for costs incurred after 9 February 2005.

Orders

  • ["Vacate Order 4 made on 9 February 2005, and in lieu thereof order that Mr. and Mrs. Taylor pay Vero's costs before the Master and of the appeal (including the application for leave), assessed in each case on the basis of the briefing of one Counsel at fees appropriate to Junior Counsel, and that they have a...