LIQUOR MARKETING GROUP & ANOR v SADLER [2000] NSWCA 207

LIQUOR MARKETING GROUP & ANOR v SADLER [2000] NSWCA 207

Although the appellants failed on some challenges, they succeeded in overturning the judgment by their challenge to imputation 5(a), making a new trial as to damages necessary. The Court held that the appellants had not acted unreasonably and that no differential costs order was warranted, so appeal costs should follow the event. Trial costs were left to the judge hearing the new trial as to damages, and Levine J's order requiring the defendants to pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's application costs was set aside because an adverse ruling on imputation 5(a) would have made it appropriate for the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of that application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs in Appeal / In Chambers After Appeal Judgment; Costs Reserved and Determined on Written Submissions
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the appellants on the appeal; trial costs left to the new trial judge; Levine J's costs order partly set aside and replaced.
Legal Topics
['appeal Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'costs of New Trial as to Damages' 'setting Aside Costs Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'defamation'] ['appeal Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'costs of New Trial as to Damages' 'setting Aside Costs Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Appeal / In Chambers After Appeal Judgment; Costs Reserved and Determined on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal despite the appellants failing on some challenges." 'Whether the costs of the trial before Goldring DCJ should be determined immediately or left to the Judge hearing the new trial as to damages.' "Whether the order of Levine J that the defendants pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's costs of the application should be set aside."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellants failed on some challenges, they succeeded in overturning the judgment by their challenge to imputation 5(a), making a new trial as to damages necessary. The Court held that the appellants had not acted unreasonably and that no differential costs order was warranted, so appeal costs should follow the event. Trial costs were left to the judge hearing the new trial as to damages, and Levine J's order requiring the defendants to pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's application costs was set aside because an adverse ruling on imputation 5(a) would have made it appropriate for the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of that application.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the appellants on the appeal; trial costs left to the new trial judge; Levine J's costs order partly set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • ["Respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal, and have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act if qualified;" 'Costs of the trial before Goldring DCJ be as ordered by the Judge hearing the new trial as to damages;' "Set aside the order of Levine J that the defendants pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's...