Minus v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 585

Minus v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 585

Because the plaintiff commenced the proceedings and repeatedly sought vacation of the first listing, he was required to bear the costs of the adjournment sought by him; accordingly the costs thrown away by the amended statement of claim included the costs of the 18 November 2016 listing. On the costs of the 9 March 2017 argument, the defendants' application for half their costs fairly reflected the outcome of that judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Application Determined on the Papers Following Rulings on Defendants' Objections to a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay specified costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'defamation List Practice Note' 'vacating Listings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'mixed Success on Objections']
['costs' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'defamation List Practice Note' 'vacating Listings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'mixed Success on Objections']

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

Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Application Determined on the Papers Following Rulings on Defendants' Objections to a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs thrown away by reason of the filing of the amended statement of claim should include the costs of the listing on 18 November 2016.' 'What costs order should be made for the argument determined on 9 March 2017 concerning objections to the proposed amended statement of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff commenced the proceedings and repeatedly sought vacation of the first listing, he was required to bear the costs of the adjournment sought by him; accordingly the costs thrown away by the amended statement of claim included the costs of the 18 November 2016 listing. On the costs of the 9 March 2017 argument, the defendants' application for half their costs fairly reflected the outcome of that judgment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay specified costs.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the filing of the amended statement of claim including the costs of the first notice of objections and the listing on 18 November 2016.' "Plaintiff to pay half the defendants' costs of the argument determined on 9 March 2017."]