Patakas v Bevan (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 303

Patakas v Bevan (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 303

Given that powerful arguments existed on both sides and the respondent's opposition to the injunction was not unreasonable, the proper order is that the costs of both the interlocutory injunction and summary dismissal applications should be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Costs Order Following Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Costs of the interlocutory applications to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'summary Dismissal']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Equity Proceeding / Costs Order Following Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs of the applications for interlocutory injunction and summary dismissal should be awarded as costs in the cause']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that powerful arguments existed on both sides and the respondent's opposition to the injunction was not unreasonable, the proper order is that the costs of both the interlocutory injunction and summary dismissal applications should be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the interlocutory applications to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the interlocutory applications heard on 29 and 30 September 2016 be costs in the cause.']