Gordian Runoff Ltd v Heyday Group Ltd [NO.2] [2005] NSWCA 124

Gordian Runoff Ltd v Heyday Group Ltd [NO.2] [2005] NSWCA 124

Baulderstone would only have needed to file a submitting appearance but for paragraph 4 of the GIO's written submissions, which raised a point affecting Baulderstone's interests and was not communicated to Baulderstone as abandoned until the commencement of the hearing. The appellant therefore had to pay Baulderstone's costs only on a submitting basis, while the GIO had to pay Baulderstone's costs of and incidental to its appearance at the hearing on 6 December 2004.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment in an Appeal / On Submissions After the Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
Costs orders made after appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'submitting Appearance' 'abandoned Submission' 'insurance Indemnity' 'contractual Indemnity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'insurance'] ['costs of Appeal' 'submitting Appearance' 'abandoned Submission' 'insurance Indemnity' 'contractual Indemnity']

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

Costs Judgment in an Appeal / On Submissions After the Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal generally or only on the basis of a submitting appearance." "Whether the third respondent should pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to its appearance at the hearing caused by the third respondent's abandoned written submission."]

Ratio Decidendi

Baulderstone would only have needed to file a submitting appearance but for paragraph 4 of the GIO's written submissions, which raised a point affecting Baulderstone's interests and was not communicated to Baulderstone as abandoned until the commencement of the hearing. The appellant therefore had to pay Baulderstone's costs only on a submitting basis, while the GIO had to pay Baulderstone's costs of and incidental to its appearance at the hearing on 6 December 2004.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made after appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order that the appellant pay the costs of the third respondent on the appeal and the costs of the second respondent on the basis of a submitting appearance.' 'Order that the third respondent pay the costs of the second respondent of and incidental to its appearance on the hearing of the appeal on 6 December 2004.']