Gladio Pty Ltd v Buckworth (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1462

Gladio Pty Ltd v Buckworth (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1462

The Court found no warrant for proceedings in the Supreme Court rather than District Court, and no grounds to depart from UCPR r 42.34; thus, no costs order between plaintiff and first defendant. Costs on failed cross-claims should follow the event. As to the third cross-claim, a Bullock order is appropriate so plaintiff and first defendant jointly and severally indemnify the second defendant for SCTM's costs up to 30 March 2015. SCTM's offers of settlement were not unreasonably rejected; no indemnity costs are awarded.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gladio Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Virginia Louise Buckworth; Second Defendant: Ashdown Home Units Pty Ltd; Cross Defendant: Laser Cheque Pty Ltd t/as Sydney Company Title Management
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings, Costs Decision / Post Judgment, Costs Orders
Outcome
Costs orders made as per paragraph 99: (1) no order as to costs between plaintiff and first defendant; (2) first defendant to pay second defendant's costs of cross-claim; (3) plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs; (4) second defendant to pay cross-defendant's costs; (5) plaintiff and first defendant jointly and...
Legal Topics
Costs, Jurisdiction, Cross Claims, Offers of Compromise
Civil Procedure Equity Costs Jurisdiction Cross Claims Offers of Compromise

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladio Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Virginia Louise Buckworth

First Defendant

Ashdown Home Units Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Laser Cheque Pty Ltd t/as Sydney Company Title Management

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings, Costs Decision / Post Judgment, Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs orders should be made in favour of plaintiff under UCPR r 42.34 given Supreme Court proceedings rather than District Court
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event for failed cross-claims
  3. 3 Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order should be made on the third cross-claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no warrant for proceedings in the Supreme Court rather than District Court, and no grounds to depart from UCPR r 42.34; thus, no costs order between plaintiff and first defendant. Costs on failed cross-claims should follow the event. As to the third cross-claim, a Bullock order is appropriate so plaintiff and first defendant jointly and severally indemnify the second defendant for SCTM's costs up to 30 March 2015. SCTM's offers of settlement were not unreasonably rejected; no indemnity costs are awarded.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made as per paragraph 99: (1) no order as to costs between plaintiff and first defendant; (2) first defendant to pay second defendant's costs of cross-claim; (3) plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs; (4) second defendant to pay cross-defendant's costs; (5) plaintiff and first defendant jointly and...

Orders

  • No further order as to costs between plaintiff and first defendant for plaintiff's claim and first defendant's cross-claim.
  • First defendant to pay second defendant's costs for her cross-claim against it.