Herrick v Knowles (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 54
The court has discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to order costs for a non-party where exceptional circumstances exist. The circumstances of Dr McCallum’s participation, necessity to inform the court about confidentiality and public policy, and the requirements of justice justify an award of costs in her favour.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Non Party Costs
- Outcome
- Costs order in favour of non-party Dr McCallum
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'costs of Non Parties' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'non Party Representation' 'confidentiality in Client/social Worker Relationship']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Non Party Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the court has discretion to order costs in favour of a non-party' 'Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying a costs order for a non-party' 'Whether it was necessary for a non-party to be separately represented']
Ratio Decidendi
The court has discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to order costs for a non-party where exceptional circumstances exist. The circumstances of Dr McCallum’s participation, necessity to inform the court about confidentiality and public policy, and the requirements of justice justify an award of costs in her favour.
Court Disposition
Costs order in favour of non-party Dr McCallum
Orders
- ["The plaintiff is to pay Dr McCallum's costs of the hearing on 7 August 2014 on an ordinary basis forthwith. These costs are to include the costs involved in the preparation of Dr McCallum's affidavit."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment