Choukor v Spiroski (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 15

Choukor v Spiroski (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 15

The costs order made on 13 December 2016 was altered as the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, the plaintiff's evidence expanded her explanation, and the statutory framework justified costs of the Notice of Motion being costs in the cause.

Parties
Plaintiff: Fatima Choukor; Defendant: Riste Spiroski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Costs Ruling Following Determination of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Order as to costs; previous costs order vacated.
Legal Topics
Motor Accident Claim, Negligence, Limitation Period, Costs

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatima Choukor

Plaintiff

Riste Spiroski

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding / Costs Ruling Following Determination of Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the claim
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the defendant in making the application for dismissal was unreasonable
  3. 3 How costs should be allocated given the success and conduct of both parties

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order made on 13 December 2016 was altered as the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, the plaintiff's evidence expanded her explanation, and the statutory framework justified costs of the Notice of Motion being costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Order as to costs; previous costs order vacated.

Orders

  • Order 2 made by the Court on 13 December 2016 is vacated.
  • The plaintiff's costs of the defendant's Notice of Motion filed on 20 July 2016 be the plaintiff's costs in the cause. The defendant is to pay his own costs of the application.