Slotwinski v Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 113

Slotwinski v Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 113

The appellant was entitled to costs of the appeal and the underlying Tribunal proceedings because she was ultimately successful: the respondent's claim was wholly extinguished by the equitable set-off defence, and there was no disentitling conduct or other discretionary reason to refuse or apportion costs. Consequently, costs follow the event in favour of the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Julia Slotwinski; Respondent: Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Costs on Appeal and Underlying Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in AP 19/52825 (costs awarded to appellant); Appeal dismissed in AP 20/32176 (no order as to costs)
Legal Topics
Costs, Equitable Set Off, Quantum Meruit, Building and Construction
Civil Procedure Costs Equitable Set Off Quantum Meruit Building and Construction

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 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Slotwinski

Appellant

Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Costs on Appeal and Underlying Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event where the respondent's claim is extinguished by equitable set-off
  2. 2 Whether costs orders should be made in favour of the appellant in both First Nutek and Remitted Proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's solicitors should be joined and liable for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was entitled to costs of the appeal and the underlying Tribunal proceedings because she was ultimately successful: the respondent's claim was wholly extinguished by the equitable set-off defence, and there was no disentitling conduct or other discretionary reason to refuse or apportion costs. Consequently, costs follow the event in favour of the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in AP 19/52825 (costs awarded to appellant); Appeal dismissed in AP 20/32176 (no order as to costs)

Orders

  • A hearing is dispensed with.
  • The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in the sum of $2,542.15.