Hopkins v Quinn (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 187

Hopkins v Quinn (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 187

None of the parties’ offers operated to displace the usual approach that costs follow the event on an ordinary basis, as none proved more favourable in outcome for the opposing party than the result. Given the pivotal point of 26 April 2018 when technical issues were resolved and the applicant’s continuation of the proceedings was without basis thereafter, costs are apportioned temporally up to that date in the applicant’s favour and thereafter in the respondents’ favour. The applicant's pursuit of alternative costs arguments for the costs hearing was entirely without merit and futile, justifying indemnity costs for the costs hearing in favour of the respondents.

Parties
Applicant: John Hopkins; First Respondent: David Quinn; Second Respondent: Maria Quinn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 4 (environmental/planning Enforcement Land and Environment Court) / Post Final Judgment (costs Hearing and Determination After Substantive Dispute)
Outcome
Costs orders apportioned: Respondents to pay applicant’s costs up to 26 April 2018 (ordinary basis as agreed or assessed); applicant to pay respondents’ costs from 27 April to 8 August 2018 (ordinary basis as agreed or assessed); applicant to pay respondents’ costs of the costs hearing on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Apportionment of Costs, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Apportionment of Costs Indemnity Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hopkins

Applicant

David Quinn

First Respondent

Maria Quinn

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 (environmental/planning Enforcement Land and Environment Court) / Post Final Judgment (costs Hearing and Determination After Substantive Dispute)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was reason to depart from 'costs follow the event' in light of offers made and apportionment of issues in the litigation; whether conduct of the parties warranted special costs orders for the costs hearing

Ratio Decidendi

None of the parties’ offers operated to displace the usual approach that costs follow the event on an ordinary basis, as none proved more favourable in outcome for the opposing party than the result. Given the pivotal point of 26 April 2018 when technical issues were resolved and the applicant’s continuation of the proceedings was without basis thereafter, costs are apportioned temporally up to that date in the applicant’s favour and thereafter in the respondents’ favour. The applicant's pursuit of alternative costs arguments for the costs hearing was entirely without merit and futile, justifying indemnity costs for the costs hearing in favour of the respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs orders apportioned: Respondents to pay applicant’s costs up to 26 April 2018 (ordinary basis as agreed or assessed); applicant to pay respondents’ costs from 27 April to 8 August 2018 (ordinary basis as agreed or assessed); applicant to pay respondents’ costs of the costs hearing on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs up to 26 April 2018 on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the Respondents' costs from 27 April to 8 August 2018 on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.