GIO GENERAL LIMITED v SMITH & Ors INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD T/as NRMA INSURANCE v SMITH & Ors (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 998

GIO GENERAL LIMITED v SMITH & Ors INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD T/as NRMA INSURANCE v SMITH & Ors (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 998

The effect of UCPR 42.1 is clear: absent disentitling conduct or other sufficient reason, costs follow the event. Mr Smith’s submissions do not justify departure from the rule. Any hardship is addressed by potential Suitors Fund Act certification.

Parties
Plaintiff: GIO General Limited; Plaintiff: Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance; First Defendant: Graham Smith; Second Defendant: The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW; Third Defendant: NRMA Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Costs awarded against Mr Smith; certificates under Suitors Fund Act to be granted if eligible.
Legal Topics
Costs, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Suitors Fund Act Certificates
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Suitors Fund Act Certificates

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GIO General Limited

Plaintiff

Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance

Plaintiff

Graham Smith

First Defendant

The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW

Second Defendant

NRMA Insurance Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs follow the event in administrative law proceedings under UCPR 42.1?
  2. 2 Is there good reason to depart from the usual order as to costs based on Mr Smith's submissions?
  3. 3 Should a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 be granted to Mr Smith to mitigate hardship?

Ratio Decidendi

The effect of UCPR 42.1 is clear: absent disentitling conduct or other sufficient reason, costs follow the event. Mr Smith’s submissions do not justify departure from the rule. Any hardship is addressed by potential Suitors Fund Act certification.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against Mr Smith; certificates under Suitors Fund Act to be granted if eligible.

Orders

  • In proceedings 2010/426730 Mr Smith is to pay the plaintiff's (GIO) costs.
  • In proceedings 2011/84996 Mr Smith is to pay the third defendant's (GIO) costs.