Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2022] NSWCA 61

Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2022] NSWCA 61

Leave to appeal was refused because, even assuming the primary judge overlooked the applicant's disproportionality argument, the applicant had ample opportunity before and after entry of the orders to ask the primary judge to address the omission under UCPR r 36.16, the primary judge was better placed to determine the issue, the Court of Appeal could not finally dispose of it without remittal, and the interests of justice did not warrant adding further costs to the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Costs Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'ordinary Costs' 'proportionality of Costs' 'failure to Deal With Argument' 'variation or Setting Aside of Orders Under UCPR R 36.16' 'offer of Compromise and Calderbank Letter']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'ordinary Costs' 'proportionality of Costs' 'failure to Deal With Argument' 'variation or Setting Aside of Orders Under UCPR R 36.16' 'offer of Compromise and Calderbank Letter']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the applicant alleged that the primary judge failed to deal with a disproportionality argument concerning costs.' 'Whether the applicant should have first approached the primary judge under UCPR r 36.16 to vary or set aside the costs order on the basis that the argument had not been addressed.' 'Whether the interests of justice warranted granting leave where the Court of Appeal could not finally dispose of the issue without remitting the matter to the District Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, even assuming the primary judge overlooked the applicant's disproportionality argument, the applicant had ample opportunity before and after entry of the orders to ask the primary judge to address the omission under UCPR r 36.16, the primary judge was better placed to determine the issue, the Court of Appeal could not finally dispose of it without remittal, and the interests of justice did not warrant adding further costs to the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.']