Downe v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 1039

Downe v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 1039

The filing and transfer of proceedings, including those under the Trade Practices Act, was reasonable, not colourable, and facilitated a just outcome. Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs is refused, as the defendants did not act inconsistently with model litigant obligations. Defendants' claim for costs on the Trade Practices Act claim is also refused; costs are awarded to the plaintiff on the ordinary basis for all proceedings.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lynette Downe; Defendant: Sydney West Area Health Service; Second Defendant: State of New South Wales; Third Defendant: Director-General of the New South Wales Health Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Application for Costs
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded costs on the ordinary basis; claims for indemnity costs and for costs by the defendants on the Trade Practices Act claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Cross Vesting, Model Litigant Obligations
Civil Procedure Employment Law Costs Indemnity Costs Cross Vesting Model Litigant Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynette Downe

Plaintiff

Sydney West Area Health Service

Defendant

State of New South Wales

Second Defendant

Director-General of the New South Wales Health Service

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs in relation to the Trade Practices Act claim
  3. 3 Whether the filing and transfer of related proceedings was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The filing and transfer of proceedings, including those under the Trade Practices Act, was reasonable, not colourable, and facilitated a just outcome. Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs is refused, as the defendants did not act inconsistently with model litigant obligations. Defendants' claim for costs on the Trade Practices Act claim is also refused; costs are awarded to the plaintiff on the ordinary basis for all proceedings.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded costs on the ordinary basis; claims for indemnity costs and for costs by the defendants on the Trade Practices Act claim rejected.

Orders

  • The defendants shall pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed, including (a) the costs of and incidental to the proceedings between the parties in the Federal Court of Australia (NSD 708 of 2006); (b) the costs of and incidental to the transfer of the Federal Court...