An v Joo (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 485

An v Joo (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 485

Mr An failed in his application for costs, while the New Defendants succeeded in obtaining the outcome they sought in their alternative submission that there be no order as to costs in the principal proceedings. As costs generally follow the event, the defendants are entitled to their costs of the costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the costs application, with certain exceptions.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'adversarial Proceedings' 'general Rule That Costs Follow the Event']
['equity'] ['costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'adversarial Proceedings' 'general Rule That Costs Follow the Event']

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

Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff should pay the costs of the unsuccessful costs application to the defendants' 'Whether the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies to this costs application']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr An failed in his application for costs, while the New Defendants succeeded in obtaining the outcome they sought in their alternative submission that there be no order as to costs in the principal proceedings. As costs generally follow the event, the defendants are entitled to their costs of the costs application.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the costs application, with certain exceptions.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the plaintiff's costs application on the ordinary basis (excluding the costs of the 8th, 9th and 17th defendants, as to which the Court makes no order as to costs)."]