Forrest v Appleyard [2006] NSWSC 471

Where defendants are separately represented and advance separate defences, and the plaintiff must defeat each to succeed, costs should be awarded against all defendants jointly and severally rather than apportioned, even if the underlying agreement contemplates pro rata liability in other contexts.

Parties: Plaintiff: John James Forrest; First Defendant: Leigh Davern Appleyard; Second Defendant: Geoffrey Martin Pryke; Third Defendant: Bruce Anthony Kenny
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 08 May 2006
Procedural Posture: Costs Order (post Judgment in Equity Proceedings) / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome: Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs. No apportionment.
Legal Topics: Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Separate Representation

Equity Civil Procedure Costs Apportionment of Costs Separate Representation

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

John James Forrest

Plaintiff

Leigh Davern Appleyard

First Defendant

Geoffrey Martin Pryke

Second Defendant

Bruce Anthony Kenny

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Order (post Judgment in Equity Proceedings) / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

1 Whether costs should be apportioned between defendants who were separately represented
2 Whether liability for costs should be joint and several or pro rata among the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs. No apportionment.

Orders

Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to date.
No special costs order between the defendants (ie, as between defendants, no apportionment ordered).