Rose v Meriton Apartments Ptd Ltd and another (No 2) [2008] NSWIRComm 25

Rose v Meriton Apartments Ptd Ltd and another (No 2) [2008] NSWIRComm 25

The Court determined that, with respect to the second respondent, the usual rule should apply and costs should follow the event—costs payable forthwith for both the appeal and interlocutory applications. No order for costs against the first respondent in appeal proceedings, but costs for its notice of motion should be ordered. The issues determined were sufficiently self-contained and detached to warrant immediate payment of costs under Rule 203 and the principles established in Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd v McCausland.

Parties
Appellant: John Emanuel Rose; First Respondent: Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Owners Corporation Strata Plan No 56443
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Costs ordered as specified; costs to be paid forthwith by second respondent, costs for particular motions at first instance ordered against respective respondents, costs of appellant’s unsuccessful motion to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeal, Unfair Contract
Industrial Law Costs Appeal Unfair Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Emanuel Rose

Appellant

Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Owners Corporation Strata Plan No 56443

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event
  2. 2 Whether costs should be payable forthwith or at the conclusion of proceedings
  3. 3 Application of costs rules in the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that, with respect to the second respondent, the usual rule should apply and costs should follow the event—costs payable forthwith for both the appeal and interlocutory applications. No order for costs against the first respondent in appeal proceedings, but costs for its notice of motion should be ordered. The issues determined were sufficiently self-contained and detached to warrant immediate payment of costs under Rule 203 and the principles established in Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd v McCausland.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered as specified; costs to be paid forthwith by second respondent, costs for particular motions at first instance ordered against respective respondents, costs of appellant’s unsuccessful motion to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The second respondent shall forthwith pay the appellant's costs of the appeal proceedings as agreed or assessed.
  • The second respondent shall pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings at first instance with respect to the hearing of the notices of motion filed by the second respondent on 2 March 2006 and 23 February 2006 referred to in Orders 6 and 7.