Bromhead v Graham (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 710

Bromhead v Graham (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 710

Because the issues fought before the judge had been substantially won by the Plaintiffs, and those issues constituted a discrete aspect of the matter fundamental to the parties' relationship and discrete from the remaining damages inquiry, it was inappropriate to reserve costs until damages were determined; the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs to date forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Partnership Dissolution and Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Proposed Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Including Slip Rule Amendment, Damages Inquiry and Costs
Outcome
Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' costs to date forthwith; application to amend paragraph 67 refused; broader referral of associated questions to Associate Judge declined.
Legal Topics
['costs Payable Forthwith' 'discrete Aspect of Proceedings' 'slip Rule' 'assessment of Damages by Associate Judge' 'partnership Dissolution']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['costs Payable Forthwith' 'discrete Aspect of Proceedings' 'slip Rule' 'assessment of Damages by Associate Judge' 'partnership Dissolution']

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

Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Partnership Dissolution and Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Proposed Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Including Slip Rule Amendment, Damages Inquiry and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 67 of the reasons for judgment should be amended under the slip rule in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17 or otherwise.' 'Whether an Associate Judge determining quantum of damages should also determine associated questions, costs issues and payment orders.' "Whether the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs to date forthwith or whether costs should be reserved until damages are determined and judgment entered."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the issues fought before the judge had been substantially won by the Plaintiffs, and those issues constituted a discrete aspect of the matter fundamental to the parties' relationship and discrete from the remaining damages inquiry, it was inappropriate to reserve costs until damages were determined; the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs to date forthwith.

Court Disposition

Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' costs to date forthwith; application to amend paragraph 67 refused; broader referral of associated questions to Associate Judge declined.

Orders

  • ['The Court refused to amend paragraph 67 of the reasons for judgment under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17 or otherwise.' 'The Court declined to order that the Associate Judge determine associated questions, costs issues or payment orders beyond making inquiry as to damages.' "The Defendant is to...