GB v EB (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 185
While UCPR r 50.16A provides discretion to vary the usual costs order for procedural non-compliance, the plaintiff has not shown that costs associated with the appeal would have been materially different had the defendants complied. No compelling circumstances justify depriving the successful defendants of costs, and ordinary, not indemnity, costs should follow the event.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 June 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Costs order; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs in gross sum.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'appeal Competency']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the defendants' failure to comply with UCPR r 50.16A alters the usual order that costs follow the event" 'Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or on the ordinary basis' "Whether the referee's report on costs should be adopted"]
Ratio Decidendi
While UCPR r 50.16A provides discretion to vary the usual costs order for procedural non-compliance, the plaintiff has not shown that costs associated with the appeal would have been materially different had the defendants complied. No compelling circumstances justify depriving the successful defendants of costs, and ordinary, not indemnity, costs should follow the event.
Court Disposition
Costs order; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs in gross sum.
Orders
- ["The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs pursuant to s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) in the gross sum of $67,681.92." 'Exhibits retained until further order.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment