Renton v Kelly [2018] NSWSC 1377

Renton v Kelly [2018] NSWSC 1377

The court was not persuaded that Mr Kelly's conduct was so unreasonable as to warrant a costs order. As there was no contested hearing and the matter was resolved by consent, and given the disputed factual matters, each party should bear their own costs of the preliminary discovery application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Discovery Application / Determination of Costs Following Resolution of Application Without Contested Hearing
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs of the preliminary discovery application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'preliminary Discovery' 'civil Procedure']
['equity'] ['costs' 'preliminary Discovery' 'civil Procedure']

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

Preliminary Discovery Application / Determination of Costs Following Resolution of Application Without Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be an order as to costs in a preliminary discovery application resolved without a contested hearing' 'Whether conduct of defendant justified a costs order against him due to alleged unreasonableness']

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not persuaded that Mr Kelly's conduct was so unreasonable as to warrant a costs order. As there was no contested hearing and the matter was resolved by consent, and given the disputed factual matters, each party should bear their own costs of the preliminary discovery application.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs of the preliminary discovery application.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs.']