Stankovic v State of NSW (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 335

Stankovic v State of NSW (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 335

A lump sum costs order was appropriate because the Defendants had provided accepted evidence of costs incurred and likely recoverability, the Plaintiff adduced no evidence, the Plaintiff's own statements indicated a probable inability to pay any costs order, and a costs assessment would be disproportionate to the speed with which the proceedings had been brought to an end. Applying a broad-brush discount, the fair gross sum was 80% of the Defendants' total costs, namely $18,122.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for Lump Sum Costs Order / After Proceedings Were Dismissed and Costs Ordered Against the Plaintiff
Outcome
Order varied to make a lump sum costs order in favour of the Defendants.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs Orders' 'gross Sum Costs' 'costs Assessment' 'impecuniosity' 'summary Dismissal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['lump Sum Costs Orders' 'gross Sum Costs' 'costs Assessment' 'impecuniosity' 'summary Dismissal']

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 Application for Lump Sum Costs Order / After Proceedings Were Dismissed and Costs Ordered Against the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Defendants' costs should be fixed by a lump sum costs order instead of being referred for assessment." "Whether the Plaintiff's asserted impecuniosity and intended appeal justified refusing or delaying a further costs order." "What gross sum should be ordered for the Defendants' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

A lump sum costs order was appropriate because the Defendants had provided accepted evidence of costs incurred and likely recoverability, the Plaintiff adduced no evidence, the Plaintiff's own statements indicated a probable inability to pay any costs order, and a costs assessment would be disproportionate to the speed with which the proceedings had been brought to an end. Applying a broad-brush discount, the fair gross sum was 80% of the Defendants' total costs, namely $18,122.

Court Disposition

Order varied to make a lump sum costs order in favour of the Defendants.

Orders

  • ["Vary order 3 made on 8 February 2016 to provide: The Plaintiff should pay the Defendants' costs in the sum of $18,122."]