Kathleen Abrahams v RTA and Others [2006] NSWDC 20

Kathleen Abrahams v RTA and Others [2006] NSWDC 20

The first defendant succeeded against the plaintiff and was entitled to costs, but because the first and second defendants were separately represented until 1 August 2006 and jointly represented thereafter, with no evidence of a different costs arrangement, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs up to 1 August 2006 and one half of its costs thereafter. The plaintiff obtained judgments against the second and third defendants for the assessed damages. No exceptional circumstances justified indemnity costs against the third defendant, so costs were ordered on the ordinary basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages Proceedings With Costs Orders and Cross Claims / Ex Tempore Orders Following Reasons for Judgment Delivered on 29 August 2006
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $127,703; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $85,703; costs and cross-claim orders made.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'multiple Defendants Represented by One Solicitor and Counsel' 'aliquot Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claims' 'assessment of Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'damages'] ['costs Orders' 'multiple Defendants Represented by One Solicitor and Counsel' 'aliquot Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claims' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Civil Damages Proceedings With Costs Orders and Cross Claims / Ex Tempore Orders Following Reasons for Judgment Delivered on 29 August 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What verdicts and damages should be entered between the plaintiff and each defendant.' 'Whether the first defendant should receive its costs from the plaintiff, pay its own costs, or have its costs paid by the second defendant.' "Where the first and second defendants were represented by the same solicitors and counsel after 1 August 2006, what part of the first defendant's costs should be paid by the plaintiff." "Whether the third defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis." 'What orders should be made on the cross-claims by consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant succeeded against the plaintiff and was entitled to costs, but because the first and second defendants were separately represented until 1 August 2006 and jointly represented thereafter, with no evidence of a different costs arrangement, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs up to 1 August 2006 and one half of its costs thereafter. The plaintiff obtained judgments against the second and third defendants for the assessed damages. No exceptional circumstances justified indemnity costs against the third defendant, so costs were ordered on the ordinary basis.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $127,703; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $85,703; costs and cross-claim orders made.

Orders

  • ['As between the plaintiff and the first defendant, verdict and judgment for the first defendant.' 'As between the plaintiff and the second defendant, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $127,703.' 'As between the plaintiff and the third defendant, verdict and...