Romanos v Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1395

Romanos v Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1395

A gross costs order against all defendants was justified because all defendants jointly resisted the plaintiff's amendment motion and jointly pursued the unsuccessful transfer motion, their resistance failed to comply with the obligations imposed by s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Punjabi's likely insolvency created a material risk that it could not satisfy a costs order, and the itemised bills provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Court to apply a broad-brush assessment. Allowing for contingencies, a potential margin of difference in assessment, and the costs thrown away order, a 30% discount produced a just gross costs figure of $25,160.56 plus GST.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination of Costs of Motions After Judgment Granting the Plaintiff Leave to File Amended Pleadings and Refusing the Defendants' Transfer Motion to NCAT
Outcome
Gross costs order to be made against all defendants, unless the parties disagree with the mathematical calculation and agree a corrected figure and approach within 7 days.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'gross Costs Order' 'costs of Motions' 'costs Following the Event' 'overriding Purpose' 'insolvency and Capacity to Satisfy Costs Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'gross Costs Order' 'costs of Motions' 'costs Following the Event' 'overriding Purpose' 'insolvency and Capacity to Satisfy Costs Order']

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / Determination of Costs of Motions After Judgment Granting the Plaintiff Leave to File Amended Pleadings and Refusing the Defendants' Transfer Motion to NCAT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should receive a gross costs order for the costs of the motions.' 'Whether the costs order should be made against all defendants or only Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd.' 'What discount should be applied in fixing a gross sum for party/party costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

A gross costs order against all defendants was justified because all defendants jointly resisted the plaintiff's amendment motion and jointly pursued the unsuccessful transfer motion, their resistance failed to comply with the obligations imposed by s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Punjabi's likely insolvency created a material risk that it could not satisfy a costs order, and the itemised bills provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Court to apply a broad-brush assessment. Allowing for contingencies, a potential margin of difference in assessment, and the costs thrown away order, a 30% discount produced a just gross costs figure of $25,160.56 plus GST.

Court Disposition

Gross costs order to be made against all defendants, unless the parties disagree with the mathematical calculation and agree a corrected figure and approach within 7 days.

Orders

  • ["Unless the parties disagree with the calculation, in which event they should confer, agree the correct figure and approach within 7 days, the defendants bear Mr Romanos' costs of the motions, assessed to be a gross sum of $25,160.56 plus GST."]