Blueprint Property & Finance Pty Ltd & Anor v J D Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 391

Blueprint Property & Finance Pty Ltd & Anor v J D Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 391

Because the appeal was not pursued, it was dismissed. Costs were ordered against both appellants because the motion below was directed to both plaintiffs, the Master dealt with the matter on the footing that both were interested, and both plaintiffs appealed. Indemnity costs were refused because the issue was arguable and the Court could not readily conclude that the claim against the fourth defendant ought never to have been instituted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of Master Mc Laughlin Dismissing Claims Against the Fourth Defendant / Appeal Not Pursued; Costs and Indemnity Costs Application Determined
Outcome
Appeal by both plaintiffs dismissed; application for indemnity costs refused; respondents' costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Master' 'party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' "solicitors' Potential Liability Under Fair Trading and Trade Practices Legislation"]
['costs' 'equity' 'consumer Law'] ['appeal From Master' 'party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' "solicitors' Potential Liability Under Fair Trading and Trade Practices Legislation"]

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 From a Decision of Master Mc Laughlin Dismissing Claims Against the Fourth Defendant / Appeal Not Pursued; Costs and Indemnity Costs Application Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appeal from the Master's decision should be dismissed because it was not pursued." 'Whether costs of the appeal should be ordered against both appellants or only Blueprint Property & Finance Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the respondents should receive indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal was not pursued, it was dismissed. Costs were ordered against both appellants because the motion below was directed to both plaintiffs, the Master dealt with the matter on the footing that both were interested, and both plaintiffs appealed. Indemnity costs were refused because the issue was arguable and the Court could not readily conclude that the claim against the fourth defendant ought never to have been instituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal by both plaintiffs dismissed; application for indemnity costs refused; respondents' costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants.

Orders

  • ['Appeal by both plaintiffs dismissed.' 'Application for indemnity costs refused.' "Respondents' costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants."]