Rose v Richards [2005] NSWSC 758

Rose v Richards [2005] NSWSC 758

The defendant's notice of motion was incompetent and persisted despite clear explanations by the plaintiff's solicitors. This conduct was unreasonable and amounted to 'relevant delinquency', justifying an indemnity costs order in favour of the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs Following Consent Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to notices of motion filed by the defendant on 29 April 2005 and 6 May 2005 to be paid by the defendant, on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'consent Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'property (relationships) Act Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'family Law' 'equity'] ['costs' 'consent Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'property (relationships) Act Proceedings']

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

Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs Following Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an indemnity costs order following dismissal of notices of motion by consent' "Whether the defendant's conduct in pursuing the applications was unreasonable"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's notice of motion was incompetent and persisted despite clear explanations by the plaintiff's solicitors. This conduct was unreasonable and amounted to 'relevant delinquency', justifying an indemnity costs order in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to notices of motion filed by the defendant on 29 April 2005 and 6 May 2005 to be paid by the defendant, on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to notices of motion filed by the defendant on 29 April 2005 and 6 May 2005 be paid by defendant, such costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis."]