JONES V. CUSACK

JONES V. CUSACK

There is no justification to depart from the general rule; the respondent must pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion.

Parties
Respondent: Cusack; Applicant: Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1992
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination After Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded against respondent

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cusack

Respondent

Jones

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should pay the costs of the notice of motion

Ratio Decidendi

There is no justification to depart from the general rule; the respondent must pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against respondent

Orders

  • The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion.