HART v HERRON [1993] NSWCA 131

The appropriate order is for the respondent to pay the appellant's costs for the respondent's Notices of Motion, as there is no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs should follow the event.

Parties: Appellant: Hart; Respondent: Herron
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 11 June 1993
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Orders Following Notices of Motion Prior to Hearing of Appeal
Outcome: Orders made on Notices of Motion: respondent's Notices of Motion dismissed, respondent to pay appellant's costs; appellant's Notices of Motion dismissed, each party to bear own costs; directions given for future conduct of appeal including timetable for amended Notice of Appeal and hearing of appeal.
Legal Topics: Costs, Case Management, Appeal Procedure, Notices of Motion

Civil Procedure Costs Case Management Appeal Procedure Notices of Motion

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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Hart

Appellant

Herron

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Orders Following Notices of Motion Prior to Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether costs of respondent's Notices of Motion should be awarded to the appellant or be costs in the appeal
2 Whether leave should be granted for filing an amended Notice of Appeal and the appropriate timetable for further conduct of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Orders made on Notices of Motion: respondent's Notices of Motion dismissed, respondent to pay appellant's costs; appellant's Notices of Motion dismissed, each party to bear own costs; directions given for future conduct of appeal including timetable for amended Notice of Appeal and hearing of appeal.

Orders

Leave granted to the respondent to discontinue his cross appeal in each matter.
Each Notice of Motion otherwise dismissed.