Puntoriero & Anor v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation [2002] NSWSC 217

Puntoriero & Anor v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation [2002] NSWSC 217

The Master had jurisdiction in respect of interest upon costs at both the Common Law Division and Court of Appeal levels, but no appealable error was demonstrated in the Master's refusal to order interest under s95(4) from 21 September 1999, the date the plaintiffs paid their solicitors. The plaintiffs' claim was a common law damages claim within s95(3), and any question whether interest should run from another date, such as 5 July 2001, was not within the confines of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Interest on Costs / Appeal From Judgment of Master Malpass Delivered on 23 November 2001
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interest on Costs Under Supreme Court Act S95' 'costs Assessment Under Legal Profession Act' 'jurisdiction of Master' 'appellate Review of Discretion']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'interest on Judgments and Costs'] ['interest on Costs Under Supreme Court Act S95' 'costs Assessment Under Legal Profession Act' 'jurisdiction of Master' 'appellate Review of Discretion']

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

Appeal Concerning Interest on Costs / Appeal From Judgment of Master Malpass Delivered on 23 November 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Master erred in declining to order interest on costs from 21 September 1999 under s95(4) of the Supreme Court Act.' 'Whether a Master had jurisdiction to make an order for interest on costs ordered in the Court of Appeal as well as in the Common Law Division.' "Whether the plaintiffs' claim, being a claim for damages for negligence, fell within s95(3) of the Supreme Court Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Master had jurisdiction in respect of interest upon costs at both the Common Law Division and Court of Appeal levels, but no appealable error was demonstrated in the Master's refusal to order interest under s95(4) from 21 September 1999, the date the plaintiffs paid their solicitors. The plaintiffs' claim was a common law damages claim within s95(3), and any question whether interest should run from another date, such as 5 July 2001, was not within the confines of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed with costs.']