IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance v Qianxia Lou (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 599

IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance v Qianxia Lou (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 599

There was no compelling reason to depart from the usual costs order in favour of the successful plaintiff. One error identified in the primary judgment was obvious and could not sensibly be challenged by the first defendant, who could have saved time and money by conceding that the error occurred and that the plaintiff was entitled to relief. In those circumstances, costs were ordered against the first defendant, and the case was not appropriate for an indemnity certificate under s 6 of the Suitors Fund Act 1951.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Primary Judgment; First Defendant Sought a Different Costs Order and an Indemnity Certificate
Outcome
Order 3 of 4 April 2019 was varied so that costs are against the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff; the first defendant was not granted an indemnity certificate.
Legal Topics
['submitting Appearance' 'costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'suitors Fund Indemnity Certificate' 'judicial Review']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['submitting Appearance' 'costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'suitors Fund Indemnity Certificate' 'judicial Review']

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 / On the Papers After Primary Judgment; First Defendant Sought a Different Costs Order and an Indemnity Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be ordered against the first defendant despite her submitting appearance in the primary matter.' 'Whether there was a basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.' 'Whether the first defendant should receive a certificate under s 6 of the Suitors Fund Act 1951.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason to depart from the usual costs order in favour of the successful plaintiff. One error identified in the primary judgment was obvious and could not sensibly be challenged by the first defendant, who could have saved time and money by conceding that the error occurred and that the plaintiff was entitled to relief. In those circumstances, costs were ordered against the first defendant, and the case was not appropriate for an indemnity certificate under s 6 of the Suitors Fund Act 1951.

Court Disposition

Order 3 of 4 April 2019 was varied so that costs are against the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff; the first defendant was not granted an indemnity certificate.

Orders

  • ['Order 3 of 4 April 2019 is varied to be, costs against the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.']