Fransses v Sky Infrastructure Developers Pty Limited (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 630

Fransses v Sky Infrastructure Developers Pty Limited (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 630

Because the Plaintiff commenced and persisted with NCAT proceedings from 28 February 2019 despite NCAT lacking jurisdiction over parts of the dispute, the appropriate costs order was that the Plaintiff pay the First and Second Defendants' costs in NCAT. The Plaintiff, having succeeded against the First Defendant in this Court, was entitled to her District Court costs against the First Defendant, including costs of defending the cross-claim and relevant evidence-gathering costs, while the Plaintiff was to pay the Second Defendant's District Court costs assessed at $3,000 and the Sanderson order was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Determination / Post Judgment Costs Application After Verdicts for the Plaintiff Against the First Defendant and for the Second Defendant Against the Plaintiff, and Dismissal of the Second Defendant's Cross Claim
Outcome
Costs orders made; earlier costs orders set aside; Plaintiff's application for a Sanderson order refused.
Legal Topics
['costs After Judgment' 'ncat Proceedings Transferred to the District Court of Nsw' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs Thrown Away' 'sanderson Order' 'cross Claim Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs After Judgment' 'ncat Proceedings Transferred to the District Court of Nsw' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs Thrown Away' 'sanderson Order' 'cross Claim Costs']

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

Civil Costs Determination / Post Judgment Costs Application After Verdicts for the Plaintiff Against the First Defendant and for the Second Defendant Against the Plaintiff, and Dismissal of the Second Defendant's Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff should recover costs incurred in NCAT after commencing proceedings in a tribunal that lacked jurisdiction over parts of the claim.' "Whether the Plaintiff should pay the First and Second Defendants' costs of the NCAT proceedings." 'Whether the earlier order that there be no order for additional costs incurred by the Second Defendant should be set aside.' 'Whether the Plaintiff should receive a Sanderson order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Plaintiff commenced and persisted with NCAT proceedings from 28 February 2019 despite NCAT lacking jurisdiction over parts of the dispute, the appropriate costs order was that the Plaintiff pay the First and Second Defendants' costs in NCAT. The Plaintiff, having succeeded against the First Defendant in this Court, was entitled to her District Court costs against the First Defendant, including costs of defending the cross-claim and relevant evidence-gathering costs, while the Plaintiff was to pay the Second Defendant's District Court costs assessed at $3,000 and the Sanderson order was refused.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; earlier costs orders set aside; Plaintiff's application for a Sanderson order refused.

Orders

  • ['The orders for costs made on 10 February 2023 are set aside.' 'The Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the First and Second Defendant in NCAT.' "The First Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in this Court, including the Plaintiff's costs of defending the First Defendant's cross-claim." "The...