Foot v Burrett [2013] NSWLC 26

Foot v Burrett [2013] NSWLC 26

The court found that the plaintiff was under a sufficient liability to pay legal costs, either through implied retainer or quantum meruit, and the indemnity principle was not infringed. Therefore, costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: James Foot; Defendant: Sara Burrett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination After Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Principle, Third Party Payer
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Principle Third Party Payer

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Foot

Plaintiff

Sara Burrett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the plaintiff given arguments concerning the indemnity principle and third party payer status

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was under a sufficient liability to pay legal costs, either through implied retainer or quantum meruit, and the indemnity principle was not infringed. Therefore, costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff

Orders

  • Costs for the issue fee and service fee of the claim in the sum of $125.00 together with legal costs at the scale rate applicable to default judgment on unliquidated claims, being $662.20, payable within 28 days.