Hans Ekblad v Lorraine Ekblad (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1676

Hans Ekblad v Lorraine Ekblad (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1676

The first defendant was the successful party in the substantive proceedings and had incurred and paid legal costs related to the matter. The plaintiff did not establish a sufficient basis to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event: his asserted impecuniosity was not persuasive, his allegations that the invoices were fraudulent were unsupported, and his functus officio argument failed because the slip rule permitted the Court to address the omitted costs application. The plaintiff was therefore ordered to pay the first defendant's costs in the sum of $8,265.16.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order Application / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the first defendant against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'impecuniosity' 'slip Rule' 'functus Officio' 'self Represented Litigants']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'impecuniosity' 'slip Rule' 'functus Officio' 'self Represented Litigants']

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 Application Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order Application / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should recover costs of legal representation from the plaintiff after the plaintiff's summons was dismissed." "Whether the plaintiff's asserted impecuniosity justified departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine the costs application after making no costs order at the substantive hearing.' 'Whether the invoices relied on by the first defendant were genuine and related to the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was the successful party in the substantive proceedings and had incurred and paid legal costs related to the matter. The plaintiff did not establish a sufficient basis to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event: his asserted impecuniosity was not persuasive, his allegations that the invoices were fraudulent were unsupported, and his functus officio argument failed because the slip rule permitted the Court to address the omitted costs application. The plaintiff was therefore ordered to pay the first defendant's costs in the sum of $8,265.16.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the first defendant against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Costs in favour of the first defendant, in the sum of $8,265.16.']