Vollmer v Hauber Davidson [2006] NSWCA 79

Vollmer v Hauber Davidson [2006] NSWCA 79

The Master erred by treating the respondent's commencement of proceedings and the asserted necessity for him to commence them as determinative of costs. In the absence of agreement, resort to the Court was necessary from each party's perspective; which party commenced by statement of claim rather than cross-claim...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Costs Order in Proceedings for Adjustment of Property Interests Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Court of Appeal; Appeal by Leave From the Costs Order of Master Macready
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['adjustment of Property Interests After De Facto Relationship' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Costs Orders']
['property Relationships' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['adjustment of Property Interests After De Facto Relationship' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Costs Orders']

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

Appeal From a Costs Order in Proceedings for Adjustment of Property Interests Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Court of Appeal; Appeal by Leave From the Costs Order of Master Macready

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Master erred in ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings below." 'Whether the costs discretion should be re-exercised so that each party pay his or her own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred by treating the respondent's commencement of proceedings and the asserted necessity for him to commence them as determinative of costs. In the absence of agreement, resort to the Court was necessary from each party's perspective; which party commenced by statement of claim rather than cross-claim was a chance event and not a relevant factor. Each party failed to obtain the adjustment sought, while each exceeded the adjustment offered by the other. The costs discretion therefore had to be re-exercised, and the proper order was that each party pay his or her own costs below and on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Each party to pay his or her costs of the proceedings before Master Macready and in this Court.']