Zouk v Lyons Road Pty Limited (No 3) [2011] NSWADT 252

Zouk v Lyons Road Pty Limited (No 3) [2011] NSWADT 252

A costs order in the applicant's favour is justified from 7 May 2010 on a party-party basis due to the strength of her case after liability was no longer in dispute and the respondent's conduct in pursuing issues that were largely contestable and lengthened the hearing. However, the rejection of the applicant's earlier offer of compromise was not unreasonable as the supporting material was not provided in time, and so indemnity costs are not warranted. The respondent's application for costs for the interlocutory matter is refused as both parties enjoyed partial success and circumstances did not make a costs order fair.

Parties
Applicant: Emelie Zouk; Respondent: Lyons Road Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Claim / Application for Costs Following Substantive Decision
Outcome
Applicant awarded costs from 7 May 2010 on a party-party basis; respondent's interlocutory costs application refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Retail Leases, Damages
Commercial Law Costs Retail Leases Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emelie Zouk

Applicant

Lyons Road Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Lease Claim / Application for Costs Following Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs and, if so, from which date
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs of the interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

A costs order in the applicant's favour is justified from 7 May 2010 on a party-party basis due to the strength of her case after liability was no longer in dispute and the respondent's conduct in pursuing issues that were largely contestable and lengthened the hearing. However, the rejection of the applicant's earlier offer of compromise was not unreasonable as the supporting material was not provided in time, and so indemnity costs are not warranted. The respondent's application for costs for the interlocutory matter is refused as both parties enjoyed partial success and circumstances did not make a costs order fair.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded costs from 7 May 2010 on a party-party basis; respondent's interlocutory costs application refused.

Orders

  • The respondent to pay, on a party-party basis, the applicant's costs from 7 May 2010 and thereafter, including the costs of this application, as agreed or as assessed.
  • The respondent's application for costs in regard to its interlocutory application is refused.