Voss v Ipkendanz [2013] NSWSC 415

Voss v Ipkendanz [2013] NSWSC 415

Mr Voss was successful on the contested stay application and on obtaining leave to appeal and the relief sought before Simpson J, and the issue of appeal costs had not been dealt with; despite delay, costs should follow the event on an ordinary basis. There was no basis to award punitive damages or punitive costs to offset the Local Court costs determination, because proportionality arguments should have been raised in the Local Court costs submissions and there was no appeal from that decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law Costs Motions / Post Appeal Notices of Motion Seeking Costs Orders and Punitive Damages
Outcome
Mr Voss succeeded on his applications for costs of the stay proceedings, appeal proceedings, and current motions; his application for punitive damages was refused; Mr Ipkendanz's motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['proportionality of Costs' 'delay in Seeking Costs' 'whether Costs Were Finally Determined Without an Order Reserving Costs' 'punitive Damages' 'costs to Follow the Event']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['proportionality of Costs' 'delay in Seeking Costs' 'whether Costs Were Finally Determined Without an Order Reserving Costs' 'punitive Damages' 'costs to Follow the Event']

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 Costs Motions / Post Appeal Notices of Motion Seeking Costs Orders and Punitive Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Voss should receive costs of the stay application heard before Latham J' 'Whether Mr Voss or Mr Ipkendanz should receive costs of the amended summons and appeal heard before Simpson J' 'Whether Mr Voss should receive punitive damages or further punitive costs orders to offset the costs determination from the Local Court proceedings' 'Which party should pay the costs of the current motions']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Voss was successful on the contested stay application and on obtaining leave to appeal and the relief sought before Simpson J, and the issue of appeal costs had not been dealt with; despite delay, costs should follow the event on an ordinary basis. There was no basis to award punitive damages or punitive costs to offset the Local Court costs determination, because proportionality arguments should have been raised in the Local Court costs submissions and there was no appeal from that decision.

Court Disposition

Mr Voss succeeded on his applications for costs of the stay proceedings, appeal proceedings, and current motions; his application for punitive damages was refused; Mr Ipkendanz's motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Mr Ipkendanz is to pay Mr Voss' costs in relation to the notice of motion filed 4 December 2008 including the hearing before Latham J (the stay proceedings) and the amended summons filed 10 June 2009 including the hearing before Simpson J on an ordinary basis." "Paragraph 3 of Mr Voss' amended notice of motion...