Camenzuli v Morrison (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 62

Camenzuli v Morrison (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 62

Only the jointly represented first, second, third and eighth defendants played an active role in the proceedings, and the other defendants' interests were substantially aligned with theirs. Applying the principle that an unsuccessful litigant should not ordinarily bear more than one set of costs for parties in the same interest, only one set of costs should be awarded. The 4 April notice of motion became moot before either side took substantive steps to address it, and there was no basis for a separate costs order for that motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Principal Proceedings; Determination of Costs Applications
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, third and eighth defendants, excluding costs incurred after 8 April 2022; all other applications for costs were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'multiple Defendants in Same Interest' 'costs of Inactive Defendants' 'costs of Lapsed Joinder Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'multiple Defendants in Same Interest' 'costs of Inactive Defendants' 'costs of Lapsed Joinder Motion']

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

Costs / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Principal Proceedings; Determination of Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should pay the costs of the first, second, third and eighth defendants who were jointly represented and active in the proceedings.' 'Whether the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants, who did not take an active role and whose interests were substantially aligned with the active defendants, should receive separate costs orders.' 'Whether there should be an order for costs of the notice of motion filed on 4 April 2022 seeking amendment and joinder where the motion became moot and was dismissed after the plaintiff failed in the principal proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Only the jointly represented first, second, third and eighth defendants played an active role in the proceedings, and the other defendants' interests were substantially aligned with theirs. Applying the principle that an unsuccessful litigant should not ordinarily bear more than one set of costs for parties in the same interest, only one set of costs should be awarded. The 4 April notice of motion became moot before either side took substantive steps to address it, and there was no basis for a separate costs order for that motion.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, third and eighth defendants, excluding costs incurred after 8 April 2022; all other applications for costs were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff pay the first, second, third and eighth defendants' costs of these proceedings, excluding any costs incurred after 8 April 2022." 'Dismiss all other applications for costs.']