Hugh Corporation Pty Ltd v TAL Life Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 707

Hugh Corporation Pty Ltd v TAL Life Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 707

Because the plaintiff succeeded in its criticism of the defendant's pleadings and the defendant was required to amend them, but the plaintiff did not in practical terms succeed in obtaining the procedural orders it sought, each party had an equal measure of success on the notice of motion and there should be no order as to those costs. However, the defendant's amended defence and cross claim would cause the plaintiff to incur additional costs that it would not have incurred had the defendant pleaded correctly in the first place, so the defendant should pay those additional costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs / Decided on the Papers on Costs of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 12 December 2014 and Costs Arising From Amended Pleadings
Outcome
No order as to the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's additional costs caused by service of the amended defence and amended cross claim.
Legal Topics
['costs of Notice of Motion' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amended Pleadings' 'disclosure and Interrogatories']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Notice of Motion' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amended Pleadings' 'disclosure and Interrogatories']

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 / Decided on the Papers on Costs of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 12 December 2014 and Costs Arising From Amended Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether each party should bear its own costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 12 December 2014." 'Whether the defendant should pay costs thrown away or additional costs incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant amending its defence and cross claim.' 'What costs should be treated as costs of the notice of motion rather than additional costs caused by the amended pleadings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff succeeded in its criticism of the defendant's pleadings and the defendant was required to amend them, but the plaintiff did not in practical terms succeed in obtaining the procedural orders it sought, each party had an equal measure of success on the notice of motion and there should be no order as to those costs. However, the defendant's amended defence and cross claim would cause the plaintiff to incur additional costs that it would not have incurred had the defendant pleaded correctly in the first place, so the defendant should pay those additional costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's additional costs caused by service of the amended defence and amended cross claim.

Orders

  • ["Order that there be no order for the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 12 December 2014 with the intent that each party will pay its own costs of that notice of motion." 'Note that the costs that are intended to be the subject of order (1) include all of the costs from the filing of the notice of...