Coshott v Barry (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1248

Coshott v Barry (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1248

Given the procedural history, the prior consideration of two judgments, the debatable prima facie case on the alleged irregularities, the defendants' concession to a stay on terms, and the balance of convenience, justice required that any stay of the three costs judgments be granted only on condition that Mrs Coshott pay the disputed amount into Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Procedural Ruling Concerning Enforcement of Costs Judgments / Application for Order Restraining Enforcement of Three Costs Judgments Pending Final Determination of Proceedings
Outcome
Stay of the three judgments in question to be granted only on condition that Mrs Coshott pays the disputed amount into Court; parties to calculate the sum and file short minutes within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['stay of Enforcement' 'costs Assessment Certificates' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'supreme Court Supervisory Jurisdiction' 'balance of Convenience']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Profession' 'costs'] ['stay of Enforcement' 'costs Assessment Certificates' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'supreme Court Supervisory Jurisdiction' 'balance of Convenience']

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; Procedural Ruling Concerning Enforcement of Costs Judgments / Application for Order Restraining Enforcement of Three Costs Judgments Pending Final Determination of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether enforcement of three Local and District Court costs judgments should be restrained pending final determination of the proceedings.' 'Whether any stay should be conditional on Mrs Coshott paying the disputed amount into Court.' 'Whether challenges alleging the judgments and certificates were entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith should have been brought in the Local Court and District Court under Rule 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' "Whether prior determinations by McCallum J affected Mrs Coshott's ability to pursue further relief in respect of two judgments."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the procedural history, the prior consideration of two judgments, the debatable prima facie case on the alleged irregularities, the defendants' concession to a stay on terms, and the balance of convenience, justice required that any stay of the three costs judgments be granted only on condition that Mrs Coshott pay the disputed amount into Court.

Court Disposition

Stay of the three judgments in question to be granted only on condition that Mrs Coshott pays the disputed amount into Court; parties to calculate the sum and file short minutes within 14 days.

Orders

  • ['The disputed amount is to be calculated.' 'The parties are to file short minutes as to the terms of the orders necessary to be made within 14 days.' 'The matter will then be relisted for directions as to the steps to ready the matter for final hearing.']