Xu v Jinhong Design & Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 333

Xu v Jinhong Design & Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 333

Appellants, being substantially successful on appeal, are entitled to their costs, and orders regarding costs at first instance should await the outcome of the further trial.

Parties
First Appellant: Yi Nuo Xu; Second Appellant: Cheng En Zhu; Respondent: Jinhong Design & Constructions Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Determination
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay appellants' costs of appeal; costs at first instance to be considered after further trial.
Legal Topics
Costs of Appeal, Costs at First Instance, Contract Claim, Remitter
Civil Procedure Costs of Appeal Costs at First Instance Contract Claim Remitter

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yi Nuo Xu

First Appellant

Cheng En Zhu

Second Appellant

Jinhong Design & Constructions Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the appeal should be awarded to the substantially successful appellants
  2. 2 Whether unsuccessful points on appeal constitute dominant or separable issues for the purpose of considering costs orders
  3. 3 Whether the Court should make orders in respect of costs incurred at first instance pending further trial

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants, being substantially successful on appeal, are entitled to their costs, and orders regarding costs at first instance should await the outcome of the further trial.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay appellants' costs of appeal; costs at first instance to be considered after further trial.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.
  • Orders concerning costs incurred at first instance to be considered at the further trial pursuant to the remitter directed on 8 September 2011.