McGlinn v Sassine (No. 3) [2011] NSWADT 15

It would not be fair, having regard to overall circumstances including applicants' ultimate success and lack of respondent's offer of compromise, to make a costs order in the respondent's favour.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 January 2011
Procedural Posture: Application for Costs / Post Hearing Consequential Orders
Outcome: Application for costs refused
Legal Topics: ['costs' 'delay in Proceedings' 'failure to Comply With Directions' 'retail Leases']

['administrative Law' 'commercial Law'] ['costs' 'delay in Proceedings' 'failure to Comply With Directions' 'retail Leases']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Post Hearing Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants due to delays, failure to comply with directions, unsuccessful expert evidence, unsuccessful unconscionable conduct claim, and preparation for an aborted hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be fair, having regard to overall circumstances including applicants' ultimate success and lack of respondent's offer of compromise, to make a costs order in the respondent's favour.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

["Respondent's application for costs refused" 'No order as to costs in respect of this application' 'Order made on 6 September confirmed: no order as to costs']