Topine v Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 18

Given both parties enjoyed a measure of success and neither party's conduct or outcome justified displacing the usual rule, each side should bear their own costs of both motions.

Parties: Plaintiff: Jackson Topine; First Defendant: Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited; Second Defendant: Travis Touma
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 07 February 2025
Procedural Posture: Civil / Interlocutory Application Costs of Motions
Outcome: No order as to costs – each party to bear their own costs of each motion.
Legal Topics: Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Discretion in Costs Orders

Civil Procedure Costs Interlocutory Applications Discretion in Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jackson Topine

Plaintiff

Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited

First Defendant

Travis Touma

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Costs of Motions

Legal Issues

1 Whether the usual costs rule under r 42.7 of the UCPR should be displaced for interlocutory motions where both parties achieved mixed success.
2 Whether either party's conduct justified an order for indemnity costs or payment of costs forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi

Given both parties enjoyed a measure of success and neither party's conduct or outcome justified displacing the usual rule, each side should bear their own costs of both motions.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs – each party to bear their own costs of each motion.

Orders

In respect of the plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed 5 September 2024 and the defendants' notice of motion filed 4 September 2024, there should be no order as to costs to the intent that each of the parties bear their own costs of each motion.