Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [No.2] [2014] NSWSC 177

Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [No.2] [2014] NSWSC 177

The defendant's solicitor, acting on instructions of the defendant and Coal Mines Insurance, knew or ought to have known by at least 23 July 2013 that the five day hearing estimate was wholly inadequate and that the defendant's proposed conduct of the case made the existing directions and hearing allocation unsuitable. The defendant failed to restore the matter to the list, failed to inform the Court frankly on 30 September 2013, and deliberately disregarded the Court's orders concerning expert conclaves. Those failures caused the matter not to be ready for final hearing, caused the adjournment and vacation of the hearing date, and caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs. Because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Supreme Court Common Law Proceedings / Application for Indemnity Costs Thrown Away After Adjournment and Vacation of Final Hearing Dates
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs granted.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'expert Conclaves' 'concurrent Evidence' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'case Management'] ['indemnity Costs' 'adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'expert Conclaves' 'concurrent Evidence' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Application in Supreme Court Common Law Proceedings / Application for Indemnity Costs Thrown Away After Adjournment and Vacation of Final Hearing Dates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing commencing on 28 October 2013 on an indemnity basis." 'Whether failures to comply with case management orders concerning expert conclaves and readiness for hearing caused the adjournment.' 'Whether the costs order should be payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's solicitor, acting on instructions of the defendant and Coal Mines Insurance, knew or ought to have known by at least 23 July 2013 that the five day hearing estimate was wholly inadequate and that the defendant's proposed conduct of the case made the existing directions and hearing allocation unsuitable. The defendant failed to restore the matter to the list, failed to inform the Court frankly on 30 September 2013, and deliberately disregarded the Court's orders concerning expert conclaves. Those failures caused the matter not to be ready for final hearing, caused the adjournment and vacation of the hearing date, and caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs. Because the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs granted.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing commencing on 28 October 2013 on an indemnity basis." "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the affidavit of Mr McDonald of 1 November 2013 and the hearings of 15 November 2013 and 29 November 2013 on an indemnity basis." 'The...