Hume Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Best Interiors Aust Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 514

Hume Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Best Interiors Aust Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 514

The ordinary costs rule applied. Hume's complaints about procedural non-compliance were raised too late and did not justify depriving Ms Chu of her costs. Indemnity costs against Mr Li were not justified because his resistance was not entirely hopeless, he had put quantum in issue and Hume ultimately adopted his estimate of liability. A Bullock order was refused because, although it was reasonable to join Ms Chu, Hume's failure against her resulted from its own forensic decisions and from the Yerkey v Jones defence, not from conduct by Mr Li making it fair to impose Ms Chu's costs on him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Decision in Debt and Guarantee Proceedings / On the Papers; Costs Reserved After Judgment Delivered on 15 September 2021
Outcome
Hume succeeded in obtaining ordinary costs against Mr Li for the claim against him, but failed to obtain any reduction of Ms Chu's costs, indemnity costs against Mr Li, or a Bullock order.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'case Management Non Compliance' 'indemnity Costs' 'bullock Orders' 'guarantees' 'yerkey V Jones Defence']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'case Management Non Compliance' 'indemnity Costs' 'bullock Orders' 'guarantees' 'yerkey V Jones Defence']

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

Civil Costs Decision in Debt and Guarantee Proceedings / On the Papers; Costs Reserved After Judgment Delivered on 15 September 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the successful third defendant's costs or whether each party should bear their own costs or only a proportion should be paid because of alleged non-compliance with procedural directions." "Whether the unsuccessful second defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the claim against him on an indemnity basis." 'Whether a Bullock order should be made requiring the unsuccessful second defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for costs payable to the successful third defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ordinary costs rule applied. Hume's complaints about procedural non-compliance were raised too late and did not justify depriving Ms Chu of her costs. Indemnity costs against Mr Li were not justified because his resistance was not entirely hopeless, he had put quantum in issue and Hume ultimately adopted his estimate of liability. A Bullock order was refused because, although it was reasonable to join Ms Chu, Hume's failure against her resulted from its own forensic decisions and from the Yerkey v Jones defence, not from conduct by Mr Li making it fair to impose Ms Chu's costs on him.

Court Disposition

Hume succeeded in obtaining ordinary costs against Mr Li for the claim against him, but failed to obtain any reduction of Ms Chu's costs, indemnity costs against Mr Li, or a Bullock order.

Orders

  • ["The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the claim against him, as agreed or assessed." "The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant's costs of the proceeding, as agreed or assessed."]