Neville’s Bus Service Pty Ltd v Total Group Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 393

Neville’s Bus Service Pty Ltd v Total Group Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 393

No departure from the usual costs order was warranted because the abandoned misleading or deceptive conduct and consequential loss claims were not dominant or clearly separable and did not require or take up significant additional evidence or argument; the quantification issues, including the extent of pavement replacement, soft spots allowance, and pre-judgment interest, were also not clearly dominant or separable. The defendants therefore had to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers; Costs Following Judgment Entered on 5 April 2024
Outcome
The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to be agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Usual Costs Order' 'abandoned Claims' 'separable or Dominant Issues']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'construction Law'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Usual Costs Order' 'abandoned Claims' 'separable or Dominant Issues']

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; Costs Following Judgment Entered on 5 April 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should pay all of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings or only 50 percent of those costs." "Whether the plaintiff's abandoned misleading or deceptive conduct claim, abandoned consequential loss claim, or lack of complete success justified departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event."]

Ratio Decidendi

No departure from the usual costs order was warranted because the abandoned misleading or deceptive conduct and consequential loss claims were not dominant or clearly separable and did not require or take up significant additional evidence or argument; the quantification issues, including the extent of pavement replacement, soft spots allowance, and pre-judgment interest, were also not clearly dominant or separable. The defendants therefore had to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to be agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to be agreed or assessed."]