Riz & 1 or v Perpetual Trustee Australia Ltd & 4 ors (No 3) [2007] NSWSC 1499

Riz & 1 or v Perpetual Trustee Australia Ltd & 4 ors (No 3) [2007] NSWSC 1499

The third to fifth defendants were liable to pay the agreed judgment sum and the plaintiffs' costs, but not costs increased by the joinder of the successful first and second defendants, because the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient basis analogous to a Bullock or Sanderson order for shifting those costs. Interim stays were justified because appeal positions had not yet been fully formulated and, for the third to fifth defendants, an appeal would be sufficiently arguable with a sufficient risk of being rendered nugatory absent a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division Proceedings Involving Contracts Review Act Claim and Professional Negligence Claim / Ex Tempore Consequential Judgment on Quantification, Costs and Stays
Outcome
Judgment entered against the third to fifth defendants for $220,960.68; costs ordered against them except for costs increased by joinder of the first and second defendants; interim stays granted until 18 February 2008; proceedings adjourned to 15 February 2008.
Legal Topics
['liability for Costs of Successful Defendants' 'bullock or Sanderson Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'judgment Sum']
['costs' 'professional Negligence' 'civil Procedure'] ['liability for Costs of Successful Defendants' 'bullock or Sanderson Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'judgment Sum']

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

Common Law Division Proceedings Involving Contracts Review Act Claim and Professional Negligence Claim / Ex Tempore Consequential Judgment on Quantification, Costs and Stays

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What judgment sum should be entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the third, fourth and fifth defendants.' "Whether the third to fifth defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings or only the costs of the plaintiffs' claim against them." 'Whether the monetary judgment and possession judgment against the plaintiffs, and the judgment and costs orders against the third to fifth defendants, should be stayed pending consideration of appeals.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third to fifth defendants were liable to pay the agreed judgment sum and the plaintiffs' costs, but not costs increased by the joinder of the successful first and second defendants, because the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient basis analogous to a Bullock or Sanderson order for shifting those costs. Interim stays were justified because appeal positions had not yet been fully formulated and, for the third to fifth defendants, an appeal would be sufficiently arguable with a sufficient risk of being rendered nugatory absent a stay.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered against the third to fifth defendants for $220,960.68; costs ordered against them except for costs increased by joinder of the first and second defendants; interim stays granted until 18 February 2008; proceedings adjourned to 15 February 2008.

Orders

  • ['Give judgment that the third to fifth defendants pay the plaintiffs the sum of $220,960.68.' "Order that the third to fifth defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings except insofar as those costs have been increased by the joinder of the first and second defendants." 'Order that the judgment in...