Cominos v Di Rico (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 138

Cominos v Di Rico (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 138

The appeal was allowed because the costs orders made at first instance contained an incorrect statutory reference and failed to give reasons for unclear wording, resulting in legal error warranting setting aside the orders and remitting the question of costs for reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: Dion Cominos; Respondents: Antonio Di Rico and Marianna Di Rico T/as Tony Di Rico Building Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed and costs orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeal, Statutory Interpretation, Transferred Proceedings
Civil Procedure Home Building Law Costs Appeal Statutory Interpretation Transferred Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dion Cominos

Appellant

Antonio Di Rico and Marianna Di Rico T/as Tony Di Rico Building Services

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs orders were validly formulated
  2. 2 Whether adequate reasons were given for the form of orders
  3. 3 Whether orders excluded relevant costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the costs orders made at first instance contained an incorrect statutory reference and failed to give reasons for unclear wording, resulting in legal error warranting setting aside the orders and remitting the question of costs for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The costs orders made on 1 April 2016 in proceedings HB 14/18947 and HB 14/18936 are set aside.