Wallace v GWH Build Pty Ltd; GWH Build Pty Ltd & Anor v Wallace & Ors [No 2] [2016] NSWDC 128

Wallace v GWH Build Pty Ltd; GWH Build Pty Ltd & Anor v Wallace & Ors [No 2] [2016] NSWDC 128

The District Court had jurisdiction to determine costs because it had implied powers necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and power under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The defendants' contempt motion unnecessarily distracted from and prolonged the proceedings, delayed interlocutory matters and the ultimate trial, had no rational connection with the issues in the case, and caused the plaintiffs to incur considerable additional costs; indemnity costs were therefore warranted. Although continuing the unarguable allegation against the principal solicitor could prima facie justify a personal costs order, it was not rationally possible to apportion the costs between...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs / Reserved Costs Issues After Dismissal of Amended Motion Seeking Referral of the Plaintiffs' Solicitors to the Supreme Court for Prosecution for Alleged Civil Contempt
Outcome
The plaintiffs were awarded indemnity costs against the defendant and cross-claimants; no personal costs order was made against Mr Lancaster.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'personal Costs Order Against Solicitor' 'jurisdiction to Award Costs' 'alleged Civil Contempt' 'implied Powers of Statutory Courts']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'contempt'] ['indemnity Costs' 'personal Costs Order Against Solicitor' 'jurisdiction to Award Costs' 'alleged Civil Contempt' 'implied Powers of Statutory Courts']

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 / Reserved Costs Issues After Dismissal of Amended Motion Seeking Referral of the Plaintiffs' Solicitors to the Supreme Court for Prosecution for Alleged Civil Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' costs of opposing the unsuccessful amended motion should be paid on an indemnity basis" "Whether the defendants' solicitor should personally pay the plaintiffs' costs" 'Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a costs order in relation to the unsuccessful motion']

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court had jurisdiction to determine costs because it had implied powers necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and power under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The defendants' contempt motion unnecessarily distracted from and prolonged the proceedings, delayed interlocutory matters and the ultimate trial, had no rational connection with the issues in the case, and caused the plaintiffs to incur considerable additional costs; indemnity costs were therefore warranted. Although continuing the unarguable allegation against the principal solicitor could prima facie justify a personal costs order, it was not rationally possible to apportion the costs between...

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs were awarded indemnity costs against the defendant and cross-claimants; no personal costs order was made against Mr Lancaster.

Orders

  • ['The defendant and the cross-claimants pay on the indemnity basis the costs incurred by the plaintiffs in resisting the amended motion filed on 4 February 2016 which sought the referral of the solicitors for the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 203 of the District Court Act 1973 for consideration of a...