Fowler Homes Pty Ltd v Roberts [2014] NSWDC 3

Fowler Homes Pty Ltd v Roberts [2014] NSWDC 3

The appeal was dismissed because no qualifying error of law, misapplication of relevant principles, or miscarriage of discretion was established in the Tribunal Member's determination or costs order; the Member's reasoning and approach to the identification of 'the event' were appropriate and consistent with authority.

Parties
Plaintiff: Fowler Homes Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Denis Roberts; Second Defendant: Theresa Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Orders
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
CTTT Appeal, Costs Discretion, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Application
Civil Procedure Costs CTTT Appeal Costs Discretion Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Application

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fowler Homes Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Denis Roberts

First Defendant

Theresa Roberts

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal member erred in determining 'the event' for purposes of a costs order
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to consider evidence about parties' conduct in proceedings
  3. 3 Whether appropriate consideration was given to a Calderbank offer

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no qualifying error of law, misapplication of relevant principles, or miscarriage of discretion was established in the Tribunal Member's determination or costs order; the Member's reasoning and approach to the identification of 'the event' were appropriate and consistent with authority.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Summons Commencing an Appeal filed on 11 September 2013 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the Summons.