Spencer v Coshott (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 266

Spencer v Coshott (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 266

The prolonged history of costs litigation between the parties showed that the interests of the parties and the administration of justice would be served by bringing the dispute to an end. A gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) was appropriate, but the applicant's proposed 10% discount did not adequately reflect the vicissitudes of assessment and the respondent's invoice criticisms. The Court applied a 30% reduction to the claimed costs for the District Court proceeding, the s 69 proceeding, and the gross sum costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / On the Papers; Application for Gross Sum Costs Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application for gross sum costs granted; respondent ordered to pay applicant specified gross sum costs.
Legal Topics
['gross Sum Costs' 'costs Assessment' 'judicial Review Proceedings' 'statutory Appeal Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['gross Sum Costs' 'costs Assessment' 'judicial Review Proceedings' 'statutory Appeal Costs']

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 / On the Papers; Application for Gross Sum Costs Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the applicant's costs of the District Court statutory appeal and the judicial review proceedings in this Court." 'Whether those costs should be ordered as specified gross sums under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) rather than assessed under the costs assessment regime.' 'What discount should be applied to the costs claimed to reflect the vicissitudes of assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prolonged history of costs litigation between the parties showed that the interests of the parties and the administration of justice would be served by bringing the dispute to an end. A gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) was appropriate, but the applicant's proposed 10% discount did not adequately reflect the vicissitudes of assessment and the respondent's invoice criticisms. The Court applied a 30% reduction to the claimed costs for the District Court proceeding, the s 69 proceeding, and the gross sum costs application.

Court Disposition

Application for gross sum costs granted; respondent ordered to pay applicant specified gross sum costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 the respondent (Ronald Coshott) pay to the applicant (Keith Spencer) in relation to the statutory appeal to the District Court, costs in the gross sum of $23,392.78.' 'Pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 the respondent (Ronald Coshott) pay...