Duncan v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] NSWSC 822

Duncan v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] NSWSC 822

The Commonwealth's opposition was not wholly unreasonable; consistent with practice in similar cases, the appropriate order is that the costs of the plaintiff's application pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 be costs in the cause.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Limitation Period / Costs Determination
Outcome
costs of the plaintiff's application are costs in the cause
Legal Topics
['costs' 'extension of Limitation Period']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'extension of Limitation Period']

Source-derived case record

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

Application to Extend Limitation Period / Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate order for costs following an application to extend the limitation period pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth's opposition was not wholly unreasonable; consistent with practice in similar cases, the appropriate order is that the costs of the plaintiff's application pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

costs of the plaintiff's application are costs in the cause

Orders

  • ["The costs of the plaintiff's application pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 are costs in the cause."]