(re: Heuving)) Cumberland Newspapers v Seltsam Pty Limited and Ors [2005] NSWDDT 56

(re: Heuving)) Cumberland Newspapers v Seltsam Pty Limited and Ors [2005] NSWDDT 56

The motions were dismissed and party and party costs were ordered because the applicant abandoned the motions and the respondents were clearly entitled to costs, but indemnity costs were refused because, without argument demonstrating that the motions were a waste of time, the Tribunal was not satisfied that grounds for indemnity costs existed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion Seeking Review of a Registrar's Order in Cross Claim Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Dismissal of Motion and Costs
Outcome
Motions dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs; indemnity costs declined.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' "review of Registrar's Order" 'cross Claims']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' "review of Registrar's Order" 'cross Claims']

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

Motion Seeking Review of a Registrar's Order in Cross Claim Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Dismissal of Motion and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the motions seeking review of the Registrar's order should be dismissed after the applicant indicated it would not pursue them." 'Whether the respondent should receive indemnity costs on the basis that the motions were a complete waste of time.' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to party and party costs, including costs of senior counsel on a single brief for two matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were dismissed and party and party costs were ordered because the applicant abandoned the motions and the respondents were clearly entitled to costs, but indemnity costs were refused because, without argument demonstrating that the motions were a waste of time, the Tribunal was not satisfied that grounds for indemnity costs existed.

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs; indemnity costs declined.

Orders

  • ['In each case the motion is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs." "For the benefit of the costs assessor, the Tribunal noted that it was reasonable for those costs to include counsel's fees for senior counsel on the basis of a single brief fee for the two matters, being Heuving and Moorhead...