Matar v Jones (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 336

Matar v Jones (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 336

The appellant was successful on the appeal because he obtained a substantial increase in the judgment in his favour from $156,833 to $275,273, and the issues on which he failed were not dominant or separable. Accordingly, the costs order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal should not be varied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs of Appeal / On the Papers After Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Respondent's application to vary the appeal costs order failed; further orders were made by agreement of the parties.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'successful Appeal' 'dominant or Separable Issues']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Appeal' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'successful Appeal' 'dominant or Separable Issues']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs of Appeal / On the Papers After Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay only one-half of the appellant's costs of the appeal because the appellant succeeded on only one of a number of issues raised by the Notice of Appeal." 'Whether the costs order made on 31 August 2011 should be varied.' "Whether the respondent's application for variation was incompetent in the absence of a notice of motion under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 36.16."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was successful on the appeal because he obtained a substantial increase in the judgment in his favour from $156,833 to $275,273, and the issues on which he failed were not dominant or separable. Accordingly, the costs order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal should not be varied.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to vary the appeal costs order failed; further orders were made by agreement of the parties.

Orders

  • ['Judgment and costs orders in the District Court set aside.' 'Judgment for the appellant against the respondent in the sum of $275,273.' 'No order as to the costs of the District Court proceedings.']