Boateng v Dharamdas [2019] NSWCA 233

Boateng v Dharamdas [2019] NSWCA 233

The majority found that in this case, the costs order was a final order requiring compliance with the formal and time requirements to vary it; the applicant had not filed a notice of motion within the prescribed time nor given grounds for dispensing with formal requirements, and in any event had not established entitlement to an indemnity costs order under r 42.15 UCPR. Leave to appeal should not be granted as no question of principle or clear injustice arose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['finality of Costs Order' 'variation of Orders' 'offers of Compromise' 'time Limits for Procedural Applications' 'liberty to Apply']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['finality of Costs Order' 'variation of Orders' 'offers of Compromise' 'time Limits for Procedural Applications' 'liberty to Apply']

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 Leave to Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that he had no power to vary the costs order except by recourse to s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether the primary judge should have dispensed with the need for a notice of motion to be filed within 14 days of the order' 'Whether the effect of r 42.15 of the UCPR was to entitle the applicant to his costs on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority found that in this case, the costs order was a final order requiring compliance with the formal and time requirements to vary it; the applicant had not filed a notice of motion within the prescribed time nor given grounds for dispensing with formal requirements, and in any event had not established entitlement to an indemnity costs order under r 42.15 UCPR. Leave to appeal should not be granted as no question of principle or clear injustice arose.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']