Taouk v Ho (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1942

Taouk v Ho (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1942

Ms Ho was entitled to indemnity costs because Mr Taouk advanced completely unmeritorious arguments in the appeal against a background of significant failures to comply with obligations under s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005, and acted unreasonably before and during the appeal, warranting departure from ordinary costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Common Law Proceedings / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Amended Summons; Application by the Successful Defendant for Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Costs order varied; indemnity costs awarded to the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'unmeritorious Arguments' 'overriding Purpose Under S.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'unmeritorious Arguments' 'overriding Purpose Under S.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings']

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 Application in Common Law Proceedings / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Amended Summons; Application by the Successful Defendant for Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ms Ho had established a proper basis for an order that Mr Taouk pay her costs of the proceedings in this Court on an indemnity basis.' "Whether Mr Taouk's arguments and conduct of the appeal were sufficiently unmeritorious or unreasonable to warrant indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Ho was entitled to indemnity costs because Mr Taouk advanced completely unmeritorious arguments in the appeal against a background of significant failures to comply with obligations under s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005, and acted unreasonably before and during the appeal, warranting departure from ordinary costs.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied; indemnity costs awarded to the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['The costs order contained in Taouk v Ho at [122](b) is varied.' "Mr Taouk is to pay Ms Ho's costs of the proceedings in this Court on an indemnity basis."]