WILSON v INTERHEALTH ENERGIES PTY LIMITED ACN 003 104 505 & ANOR (as to costs) [2008] NSWSC 1275

WILSON v INTERHEALTH ENERGIES PTY LIMITED ACN 003 104 505 & ANOR (as to costs) [2008] NSWSC 1275

The defendants were to pay the costs of the application for transfer because the plaintiff had succeeded and the defendants also could have considered the District Court jurisdiction issue and could have consented to the summons. However, each party was to bear its own costs of 29 September 2008 because the plaintiff, as moving party, should have been ready to proceed or, as a matter of professional courtesy, should have informed the defendants of counsel's unavailability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Transfer From District Court; Costs / Consequential Orders as to Costs Following Order Transferring Proceedings to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Defendants to pay the costs of the application for transfer except as to the costs of 29 September 2008, as to which each party will pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['transfer From District Court' 'costs of Application' 'professional Courtesy' 'costs Thrown Away']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['transfer From District Court' 'costs of Application' 'professional Courtesy' 'costs Thrown Away']

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

Application for Transfer From District Court; Costs / Consequential Orders as to Costs Following Order Transferring Proceedings to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs of the successful summons for transfer." 'Whether the plaintiff should pay costs because he did not oppose the earlier transfer to the District Court.' 'Whether the plaintiff should pay, or be deprived of, costs thrown away on 29 September 2008 because the plaintiff was not ready to proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were to pay the costs of the application for transfer because the plaintiff had succeeded and the defendants also could have considered the District Court jurisdiction issue and could have consented to the summons. However, each party was to bear its own costs of 29 September 2008 because the plaintiff, as moving party, should have been ready to proceed or, as a matter of professional courtesy, should have informed the defendants of counsel's unavailability.

Court Disposition

Defendants to pay the costs of the application for transfer except as to the costs of 29 September 2008, as to which each party will pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are to pay the costs of the application for transfer.' 'As to the costs of 29 September 2008, each party will pay its own costs.']