Wentworth v Rogers [2004] NSWSC 1192

The motions for a charging order repeated the same issue already determined adversely to the applicant, rendering it unreasonable for her to persist and justifying an order for indemnity costs against her. The trustees, as legal owners, appropriately appeared in the application.

Parties: Plaintiff: Katherine Wentworth; Defendant: Gordon John Rogers
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 December 2004
Procedural Posture: Motion for Review of Indemnity Costs Order / Judgment After Motions for Review
Outcome: Motions dismissed; applicant to pay trustees' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics: Indemnity Costs, Charging Orders, Discretionary Trusts, Standing in Costs Applications

Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Charging Orders Discretionary Trusts Standing in Costs Applications

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

Parties

Katherine Wentworth

Plaintiff

Gordon John Rogers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Review of Indemnity Costs Order / Judgment After Motions for Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether an indemnity costs order against the applicant by the Registrar was correctly made
2 Whether the trustees had standing to be heard on an application for a charging order under the Judgment Creditors' Remedies Act

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed; applicant to pay trustees' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Dismiss motions filed on 1 October 2003 in proceedings 19228 of 1982 and C of A proceedings 8 of 1986
Dismiss applicant's motions filed on 8 December 2003 in proceedings 19228 of 1982 and C of A proceedings 8 of 1986