Franjo Strumfin by his Litigation Guardian Peter Chodat v Anka Strumfin [2021] NSWSC 436

Franjo Strumfin by his Litigation Guardian Peter Chodat v Anka Strumfin [2021] NSWSC 436

Although a gross sum costs order may be appropriate because of the second defendant's likely non-cooperation in assessment, the invoices and supporting material did not allow the Court to be comfortably satisfied that each claimed line item related to the proceedings and the gross sum costs application, rather than conveyancing work concerning the Wollongong property and caveat. Further evidence was therefore required before any gross sum could be fixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / On the Papers After an Indemnity Costs Order, on the Plaintiff's Application for a Gross Sum Costs Order
Outcome
No order made at this stage; the plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide further evidence and the second defendant an opportunity to respond.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'further Evidence on Costs']
['costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'further Evidence on 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / On the Papers After an Indemnity Costs Order, on the Plaintiff's Application for a Gross Sum Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's indemnity costs should be fixed on a gross sum basis." 'Whether the evidence before the Court was sufficient to identify costs properly related to the proceedings and to exclude conveyancing-related costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although a gross sum costs order may be appropriate because of the second defendant's likely non-cooperation in assessment, the invoices and supporting material did not allow the Court to be comfortably satisfied that each claimed line item related to the proceedings and the gross sum costs application, rather than conveyancing work concerning the Wollongong property and caveat. Further evidence was therefore required before any gross sum could be fixed.

Court Disposition

No order made at this stage; the plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide further evidence and the second defendant an opportunity to respond.

Orders

  • ['No order made at this stage.' 'The plaintiff may provide further evidence in support of the application within 10 days.' 'Any further material should be delivered to the Associate and sent to the second defendant.' 'The second defendant will have a further 10 days to respond.']