Su v So; Verekers Lawyers v So (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 303

Su v So; Verekers Lawyers v So (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 303

Weighing the central role of the misconduct of the solicitors against their success in the proceedings, no order for costs should be made between Mr So and the solicitors either at trial or on appeal. Similarly, no order for costs should be made between Mr Su and Mr So, despite offers of compromise, due to the reasons already expressed in prior reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Judgment
Outcome
Application to vary costs orders refused.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'varying Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'varying Orders']

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

Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to vary or add to previous costs orders between parties after judgment' 'Whether offers of compromise or professional misconduct justify altering the approach to costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Weighing the central role of the misconduct of the solicitors against their success in the proceedings, no order for costs should be made between Mr So and the solicitors either at trial or on appeal. Similarly, no order for costs should be made between Mr Su and Mr So, despite offers of compromise, due to the reasons already expressed in prior reasons.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs orders refused.

Orders

  • ['Decline to vary the orders made on 27 May 2010 as to the position between Mr Su and Mr So.' 'Decline to vary or add to the orders made on 27 May as to the position between Mr So and Verekers with the consequence that each is to pay his own costs of the proceedings below and the appeal.']