Golden v Anderson & Ors (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 339

Golden v Anderson & Ors (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 339

The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had proper notice and deliberately chose not to attend, so the applications should proceed. The defendants' evidence showed that the relevant costs had been properly incurred for the defence of the proceedings, and the fixed sums sought involved appropriate discounts. Given the plaintiff's repeated proceedings arising from the same facts and indications that he would continue to litigate similar issues, it was appropriate to make both gross sum costs orders and restraining orders preventing further proceedings against the relevant defendants on the same or similar facts without leave unless and until the fixed costs were paid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Procedural Rulings / Applications by Defendants for Gross Sum Costs Orders and Orders Restraining the Plaintiff From Commencing Further Proceedings Without Paying Costs or Obtaining Leave
Outcome
Applications granted; gross sum costs orders and restraining orders made in favour of the first and second defendants and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.
Legal Topics
['gross Sum Costs Orders' 'party/party Costs' 'self Represented Litigant' 'restraint on Commencing Further Proceedings' 'repeated Proceedings Arising From Same or Similar Facts']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['gross Sum Costs Orders' 'party/party Costs' 'self Represented Litigant' 'restraint on Commencing Further Proceedings' 'repeated Proceedings Arising From Same or Similar Facts']

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

Procedural Rulings / Applications by Defendants for Gross Sum Costs Orders and Orders Restraining the Plaintiff From Commencing Further Proceedings Without Paying Costs or Obtaining Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether gross sum costs orders should be made in favour of the first and second defendants and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants' 'Whether the plaintiff should be restrained from commencing proceedings against those defendants arising from the same or similar facts without leave or until costs are paid' "Whether the matter should proceed in the plaintiff's absence"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had proper notice and deliberately chose not to attend, so the applications should proceed. The defendants' evidence showed that the relevant costs had been properly incurred for the defence of the proceedings, and the fixed sums sought involved appropriate discounts. Given the plaintiff's repeated proceedings arising from the same facts and indications that he would continue to litigate similar issues, it was appropriate to make both gross sum costs orders and restraining orders preventing further proceedings against the relevant defendants on the same or similar facts without leave unless and until the fixed costs were paid.

Court Disposition

Applications granted; gross sum costs orders and restraining orders made in favour of the first and second defendants and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the proceedings." "Pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff is to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the proceedings fixed in the sum of $15,000." 'The plaintiff is restrained from commencing in any...