Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd & anor (Costs) [2009] NSWSC 626

Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd & anor (Costs) [2009] NSWSC 626

Given the first defendant's likely insolvency, it would be unjust for the wholly successful second defendant to recover costs only from the plaintiff, who will not likely recover damages or costs from the insolvent first defendant. Therefore, a Sanderson order is appropriate, requiring the first defendant to pay both the plaintiff’s and the second defendant’s costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Quintano; First Defendant: BW Rose Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: AWS Security Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Post Trial Costs Judgment
Outcome
Sanderson order made; judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; judgment for second defendant; first defendant to pay plaintiff's and second defendant's costs
Legal Topics
Multi Defendant Litigation, Costs Orders, Bullock Order, Sanderson Order, Insolvency, Contributory Negligence
Procedure Costs Multi Defendant Litigation Costs Orders Bullock Order Sanderson Order Insolvency Contributory Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Quintano

Plaintiff

BW Rose Pty Ltd

First Defendant

AWS Security Services Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Post Trial Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is reasonable to make a Sanderson or Bullock costs order in circumstances where the plaintiff only succeeds against the first defendant, in a multi-defendant suit, and the first defendant is likely insolvent.
  2. 2 Whether fairness requires differing allocation of costs due to insolvency of the unsuccessful defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the first defendant's likely insolvency, it would be unjust for the wholly successful second defendant to recover costs only from the plaintiff, who will not likely recover damages or costs from the insolvent first defendant. Therefore, a Sanderson order is appropriate, requiring the first defendant to pay both the plaintiff’s and the second defendant’s costs.

Court Disposition

Sanderson order made; judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; judgment for second defendant; first defendant to pay plaintiff's and second defendant's costs

Orders

  • First defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $4,063,802.50
  • First defendant to pay plaintiff's costs