Smithson v Baines No.2 [1999] NSWCA 193

Smithson v Baines No.2 [1999] NSWCA 193

The appeal was allowed with costs because the appellant succeeded on the issue that the judgment used gross rather than net figures, and that success warranted correction of the error and an order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs, despite the respondent succeeding on the Thackham issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment on Appeal / By Written Submissions After Earlier Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment' 'gross and Net Figures' 'costs of Appeal' 'future Earning Capacity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment' 'gross and Net Figures' 'costs of Appeal' 'future Earning Capacity']

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 Judgment on Appeal / By Written Submissions After Earlier Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal where the appellant succeeded on the gross/net figures issue but failed on the Kempsey District Hospital v Thackham issue." 'What orders should be made to give effect to the appeal, including the amount for loss of future earning capacity and the final judgment sum.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed with costs because the appellant succeeded on the issue that the judgment used gross rather than net figures, and that success warranted correction of the error and an order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs, despite the respondent succeeding on the Thackham issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'The order made directing the entry of judgment made by Dowd J is set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, there be judgment for the respondent in the sum of $338,093.94.' "The appellants are to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings before Dowd J except that there will be no order as to...