In the matter of K & K Property Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 293

In the matter of K & K Property Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 293

The Defendant was not permitted to reopen the consent order that costs be paid to the Second Plaintiff because that issue had been common ground, the attempt exceeded the liberty reserved, and the Second Plaintiff had personally paid the invoices. The Court rejected a detailed costs-assessment approach to individual objections in fixing gross sum costs, but reduced the recoverable amount for solicitor travel time to the Sydney directions hearing and excluded GST that had been wrongly included. The gross sum costs order was therefore varied from $39,750 to $36,126.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List; Costs Application Concerning Gross Sum Costs Order After Creditor's Statutory Demand Was Set Aside / Application by the Defendant to Vary Costs Orders Made on 20 February 2018
Outcome
Orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 20 February 2018 were set aside, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs in a gross sum of $36,126 payable to the Second Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['gross Sum Costs Order' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'statutory Demand' 'derivative Action Leave' 'costs Assessment' 'gst on Costs' 'travel Costs']
['corporations' 'costs'] ['gross Sum Costs Order' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'statutory Demand' 'derivative Action Leave' 'costs Assessment' 'gst on Costs' 'travel 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

Equity Corporations List; Costs Application Concerning Gross Sum Costs Order After Creditor's Statutory Demand Was Set Aside / Application by the Defendant to Vary Costs Orders Made on 20 February 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant should be permitted to withdraw consent to the order that costs be paid to the Second Plaintiff.' 'Whether the gross sum costs order should be varied by scrutinising individual costs objections.' 'Whether solicitor travel time from Newcastle to Sydney should be included in ordinary basis costs for a Sydney directions hearing.' 'Whether GST was incorrectly included in the costs calculation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was not permitted to reopen the consent order that costs be paid to the Second Plaintiff because that issue had been common ground, the attempt exceeded the liberty reserved, and the Second Plaintiff had personally paid the invoices. The Court rejected a detailed costs-assessment approach to individual objections in fixing gross sum costs, but reduced the recoverable amount for solicitor travel time to the Sydney directions hearing and excluded GST that had been wrongly included. The gross sum costs order was therefore varied from $39,750 to $36,126.

Court Disposition

Orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 20 February 2018 were set aside, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs in a gross sum of $36,126 payable to the Second Plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 20 February 2018 be set aside.' "The Defendant pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, quantified in a gross sum of $36,126, such costs to be payable to the Second Plaintiff."]