Hossain v Unity Grammar College Ltd and Ors [2019] NSWSC 1584

Hossain v Unity Grammar College Ltd and Ors [2019] NSWSC 1584

The general rule that costs follow the event should apply to the College's cross-claim against Cohen, as Cohen's liability for contribution required specific evidence and argument distinct from proceedings against other defendants; therefore, Cohen should pay the College's costs of the cross-claim so far as they solely relate to the claim for contribution against it.

Parties
Plaintiff: Delwar Hossain; First Defendant: Unity Grammar College Ltd; Second Defendant: Binah Projecs Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: Five Star; Seventh Defendant: Elgas Limited; Third Cross Defendant on First Cross Claim: Cohen and Associates Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination After Judgment and Final Orders
Outcome
Final orders varied: Cohen to pay the College's costs of the cross-claim on the ordinary basis, so far as they solely relate to the claim for contribution against the cross-defendant and not otherwise.
Legal Topics
Costs, Contribution, Cross Claims
Civil Procedure Costs Contribution Cross Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delwar Hossain

Plaintiff

Unity Grammar College Ltd

First Defendant

Binah Projecs Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Five Star

Sixth Defendant

Elgas Limited

Seventh Defendant

Cohen and Associates Pty Ltd

Third Cross Defendant on First Cross Claim

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination After Judgment and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event in the cross-claim for contribution against Cohen
  2. 2 Proper allocation of costs between defendants and cross-defendants in contribution proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The general rule that costs follow the event should apply to the College's cross-claim against Cohen, as Cohen's liability for contribution required specific evidence and argument distinct from proceedings against other defendants; therefore, Cohen should pay the College's costs of the cross-claim so far as they solely relate to the claim for contribution against it.

Court Disposition

Final orders varied: Cohen to pay the College's costs of the cross-claim on the ordinary basis, so far as they solely relate to the claim for contribution against the cross-defendant and not otherwise.

Orders

  • Order 22 varied by adding 'Subject to Order 22A' at its commencement.
  • Order 22A added: 'The third defendant to the first cross-claim (Cohen) is to pay the first defendant's costs of that cross-claim on the ordinary basis so far as they solely relate to the claim for contribution against the cross-defendant and not otherwise.'