Followes v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] NSWIRComm 103

Followes v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] NSWIRComm 103

Although the respondent was successful and entitled prima facie to costs, the claimed amount was unreasonable because the application was limited in scope, unusual circumstances applied, some costs reflected duplication, intra-firm dealings and use of interstate solicitors, and the respondent should have given greater consideration to the applicant's proposal to withdraw on a compromised basis as to costs. The Court therefore exercised its discretion under s 181 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to fix and limit costs at $3,830.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Application for Extension of Time to Appeal in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Determination of Amount of Respondent's Costs After Refusal of Extension of Time to Appeal and Refusal of Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Costs order made in favour of the respondent in a fixed sum lower than the amount claimed.
Legal Topics
['application for Extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Contract' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor/client Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'discretion as to Costs']
['industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['application for Extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Contract' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor/client Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'discretion as to 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

Application for Costs Following Application for Extension of Time to Appeal in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Determination of Amount of Respondent's Costs After Refusal of Extension of Time to Appeal and Refusal of Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's costs should be fixed and, if so, in what amount" "Whether the respondent's itemised costs claimed on a solicitor/client basis were reasonable in the circumstances" 'Whether costs should be limited having regard to the scope and circumstances of the application for extension of time to appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent was successful and entitled prima facie to costs, the claimed amount was unreasonable because the application was limited in scope, unusual circumstances applied, some costs reflected duplication, intra-firm dealings and use of interstate solicitors, and the respondent should have given greater consideration to the applicant's proposal to withdraw on a compromised basis as to costs. The Court therefore exercised its discretion under s 181 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to fix and limit costs at $3,830.

Court Disposition

Costs order made in favour of the respondent in a fixed sum lower than the amount claimed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $3,830."]