Aslan v Stepanoski (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 89

Aslan v Stepanoski (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 89

The respondents' belated application for special costs orders should be dismissed due to the principle of finality, absence of acceptable reasons for not raising cost issues during or before the appeal hearing, and discretion not exercised in favour of post-judgment costs orders. No indemnity costs order against the respondents is justified.

Parties
Appellant: Mohammad Jamal Aslan (also known as Jim Aslan); First Respondent: Tony Stepanoski; Second Respondent: Sonja Stepanoski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Motion for Special Costs Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Finality of Litigation, Special Costs Orders, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Finality of Litigation Special Costs Orders Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Jamal Aslan (also known as Jim Aslan)

Appellant

Tony Stepanoski

First Respondent

Sonja Stepanoski

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Motion for Special Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to special costs orders post-judgment under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.16(1) and 36.16(3A)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should pay respondents' costs of hearing days relating to an issue upon which respondents succeeded at first instance
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should pay costs 'thrown away' by reason of filing amended notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' belated application for special costs orders should be dismissed due to the principle of finality, absence of acceptable reasons for not raising cost issues during or before the appeal hearing, and discretion not exercised in favour of post-judgment costs orders. No indemnity costs order against the respondents is justified.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Respondents' notice of motion dismissed.
  • Respondents to pay appellant's costs of the notice of motion.