Hargood v OHTL Public Company Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 511

Hargood v OHTL Public Company Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 511

Although the stay motion was an early, discrete interlocutory application and the proceedings might not conclude for up to two years, there was nothing sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify ordering costs payable forthwith under rule 42.7(2). The Plaintiff accepted she was not without means to run and maintain the proceedings, and no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants was alleged. The application was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Costs Application / Plaintiff's Application Under Rule 42.7(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) for Costs Ordered on the Defendants' Unsuccessful Stay Motion to Be Payable Forthwith
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for payment of costs forthwith refused; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of this application.
Legal Topics
['costs Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'inappropriate Forum']
['procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'inappropriate Forum']

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

Common Law; Costs Application / Plaintiff's Application Under Rule 42.7(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) for Costs Ordered on the Defendants' Unsuccessful Stay Motion to Be Payable Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs ordered in favour of the Plaintiff on the defendants' unsuccessful stay motion should be payable forthwith under rule 42.7(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the circumstances were out of the ordinary so as to justify departure from the ordinary rule that costs are payable at the conclusion of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the stay motion was an early, discrete interlocutory application and the proceedings might not conclude for up to two years, there was nothing sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify ordering costs payable forthwith under rule 42.7(2). The Plaintiff accepted she was not without means to run and maintain the proceedings, and no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants was alleged. The application was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for payment of costs forthwith refused; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of this application.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's application for payment of costs forthwith re Notice of Motion filed 15 September 2014 refused." "Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs of this application."]