Levy v Bablis & Anor [2009] NSWSC 768

Levy v Bablis & Anor [2009] NSWSC 768

The first defendant was entitled to its costs because the plaintiff and second defendant jointly pursued an unsuccessful application for leave to discontinue against the second defendant, causing the first defendant unnecessary expense in opposing it. There was no reason to reserve costs because the future outcome between the plaintiff and second defendant, and the absence of a cross-claim or relevant contingency between the first and second defendants, did not affect the costs consequences of the first defendant's successful opposition to the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Costs Application Arising From an Application for Leave to Discontinue Against the Second Defendant / After Refusal of Leave to Discontinue; Reasons for Costs Order Made on 30 July 2009
Outcome
Costs ordered in favour of the first defendant against the plaintiff and the second defendant jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'costs of Failed Application' 'reservation of Costs' 'joint and Several Costs Liability' 'sanderson Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'costs of Failed Application' 'reservation of Costs' 'joint and Several Costs Liability' 'sanderson 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

Equity Proceedings; Costs Application Arising From an Application for Leave to Discontinue Against the Second Defendant / After Refusal of Leave to Discontinue; Reasons for Costs Order Made on 30 July 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should receive costs of successfully opposing the plaintiff and second defendant's application for leave to discontinue against the second defendant." 'Whether costs should be determined immediately or reserved until the end of the proceedings.' 'Whether any costs order should be made against both the plaintiff and the second defendant jointly and severally.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was entitled to its costs because the plaintiff and second defendant jointly pursued an unsuccessful application for leave to discontinue against the second defendant, causing the first defendant unnecessary expense in opposing it. There was no reason to reserve costs because the future outcome between the plaintiff and second defendant, and the absence of a cross-claim or relevant contingency between the first and second defendants, did not affect the costs consequences of the first defendant's successful opposition to the application.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in favour of the first defendant against the plaintiff and the second defendant jointly and severally.

Orders

  • ["On the plaintiff and the second defendant's application for the plaintiff to have leave to discontinue against the second defendant, costs are ordered in favour of the first defendant against both the plaintiff and the second defendant, to be borne by them jointly and severally."]