Landrey v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 27

Landrey v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 27

Although the notice of motion was filed within the time required by r 36.16(3A), no basis was shown for reopening or varying the entered costs order. The original order deliberately provided for only one set of costs because the Director and the State were jointly represented, appeared in the same interest as emanations of the State, and the Director was identified as the active party. The motion was therefore dismissed, with the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Costs / Notice of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Variation of an Entered Costs Order
Outcome
Motion dismissed; first and second defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['variation of Entered Orders' 'costs Orders' 'joint Representation' 'emanations of the State']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['variation of Entered Orders' 'costs Orders' 'joint Representation' 'emanations of the State']

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

Civil Procedure; Costs / Notice of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Variation of an Entered Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had power to vary the entered costs order requiring the plaintiff to pay only the Director's costs of and incidental to the summons." 'Whether the power to vary should be exercised to require the plaintiff to pay the costs of both the Director and the State of New South Wales.' 'Who should pay the costs of the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the notice of motion was filed within the time required by r 36.16(3A), no basis was shown for reopening or varying the entered costs order. The original order deliberately provided for only one set of costs because the Director and the State were jointly represented, appeared in the same interest as emanations of the State, and the Director was identified as the active party. The motion was therefore dismissed, with the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; first and second defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the motion filed by the first and second defendants on 3 November 2022.' "Order that the first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion."]