Spyrides v Marsh (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1702

Spyrides v Marsh (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1702

Because the plaintiff succeeded completely against Used Cars Plus but failed against Mr Marsh, the first and second defendants were jointly represented and closely related, separating their costs would likely be difficult and wasteful, and aspects of Mr Marsh's confusing documentation, failure to clarify the contractual party, unreliable evidence and late affidavit invited and lengthened the litigation, justice required a special costs order that the plaintiff pay only 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs on the ordinary basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / Decision in Chambers on Costs After Judgment and Further Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'combined Costs of Related Defendants' 'conduct Lengthening Litigation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'combined Costs of Related Defendants' 'conduct Lengthening Litigation']

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 / Decision in Chambers on Costs After Judgment and Further Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the separate outcomes, with the plaintiff recovering costs against the second defendant and the first defendant recovering costs against the plaintiff.' "Whether a single order should be made requiring the plaintiff to pay 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs." "Whether the defendants' conduct of the proceedings invited or lengthened the litigation." "Whether the defendants' costs should be assessed together rather than separated between the first and second defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff succeeded completely against Used Cars Plus but failed against Mr Marsh, the first and second defendants were jointly represented and closely related, separating their costs would likely be difficult and wasteful, and aspects of Mr Marsh's confusing documentation, failure to clarify the contractual party, unreliable evidence and late affidavit invited and lengthened the litigation, justice required a special costs order that the plaintiff pay only 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs on the ordinary basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff pay 50% of the first and second defendants' combined costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed."]