Hume Plasterboard Pty Limited v Brilliant Interiors Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1034

Hume Plasterboard Pty Limited v Brilliant Interiors Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1034

Hume failed to establish an entitlement to costs thrown away because it did not identify any notices to produce, subpoenas, inquiries or documents that became unnecessary due to the amended cross-claim, adduced no evidence of actual costs thrown away, Ms Sun's original cross-claim already relied on s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law which picked up the common law, and the only new factual matter identified, the intimate relationship with Mr Suntsov, was not relevant to the Garcia issue because Hume's understanding that they were married was the relevant matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers; Plaintiff's Application That the Third Defendant/cross Claimant Pay Costs Thrown Away by the Late Amendment of Her Cross Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for costs dismissed; plaintiff to pay the third defendant/cross-claimant's costs of defending the application.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Cross Claim' 'guarantee' 'australian Consumer Law' 'garcia Principle']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Cross Claim' 'guarantee' 'australian Consumer Law' 'garcia Principle']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / On the Papers; Plaintiff's Application That the Third Defendant/cross Claimant Pay Costs Thrown Away by the Late Amendment of Her Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Sun should pay Hume's costs allegedly thrown away by the late amendment of her cross-claim." 'Whether Hume identified inquiries, documents or actual costs that were rendered unnecessary by the amended cross-claim.' "Whether the amended cross-claim raised new factual issues beyond Ms Sun's intimate relationship with Mr Suntsov, and whether that matter was relevant to the application of Garcia."]

Ratio Decidendi

Hume failed to establish an entitlement to costs thrown away because it did not identify any notices to produce, subpoenas, inquiries or documents that became unnecessary due to the amended cross-claim, adduced no evidence of actual costs thrown away, Ms Sun's original cross-claim already relied on s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law which picked up the common law, and the only new factual matter identified, the intimate relationship with Mr Suntsov, was not relevant to the Garcia issue because Hume's understanding that they were married was the relevant matter.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for costs dismissed; plaintiff to pay the third defendant/cross-claimant's costs of defending the application.

Orders

  • ["Hume's application for costs should be dismissed." "Hume should pay Ms Sun's costs of defending this application."]