Young v King (No. 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187

Young v King (No. 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187

The Applicant's costs and indemnification claims against the moving respondents had no basis, sought to re-litigate issues already raised, argued and dealt with in judgment No 6, and amounted to an abuse of process and collateral attack on that judgment. The claims therefore could not succeed and were summarily dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Costs Proceedings / Notices of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Applicant's Costs Claims Against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents
Outcome
The Applicant's claims for costs against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents were summarily dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay those respondents' costs on their motions for summary dismissal.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Against Non Parties' 'indemnity Costs' 'relitigation of Issues']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Against Non Parties' 'indemnity Costs' 'relitigation of Issues']

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

Class 4 Costs Proceedings / Notices of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Applicant's Costs Claims Against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's claims for costs against the moving respondents should be summarily dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or an abuse of process." "Whether the Applicant's claims sought to re-litigate issues decided or barred by Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111." 'Whether there was any basis for costs orders or indemnification orders against the non-party respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's costs and indemnification claims against the moving respondents had no basis, sought to re-litigate issues already raised, argued and dealt with in judgment No 6, and amounted to an abuse of process and collateral attack on that judgment. The claims therefore could not succeed and were summarily dismissed.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's claims for costs against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents were summarily dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay those respondents' costs on their motions for summary dismissal.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's claims for costs against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents are summarily dismissed." 'The Applicant is to pay their costs on their motions for summary dismissal.']