Nu Line Construction Group Pty Ltd v Fowler (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 188

Nu Line Construction Group Pty Ltd v Fowler (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 188

The reference to 'respondent' in the original orders was a clerical mistake given there were two respondents; both should be named. As neither party established additional costs with sufficient detail, a broad apportionment reduces the appellant’s recoverable costs by the assumed margin for its conduct (resulting in 57.5% of allowable costs). The costs of the motion are not awarded to either side as the respondents were not successful and the appellant did not respond.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment—application to Vary Orders
Outcome
Orders varied as set out; specific orders as to substitution of 'respondents' and for apportionment of costs.
Legal Topics
['entry of Judgment' 'amendment of Orders' 'slip Rule' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['entry of Judgment' 'amendment of Orders' 'slip Rule' '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

Appeal / Post Judgment—application to Vary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders referring to 'respondent' in the singular should be amended to 'respondents';" 'Whether the trial judge’s costs order should be varied and in what proportion;' 'Whether there should be an order as to the costs of the motion to vary orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The reference to 'respondent' in the original orders was a clerical mistake given there were two respondents; both should be named. As neither party established additional costs with sufficient detail, a broad apportionment reduces the appellant’s recoverable costs by the assumed margin for its conduct (resulting in 57.5% of allowable costs). The costs of the motion are not awarded to either side as the respondents were not successful and the appellant did not respond.

Court Disposition

Orders varied as set out; specific orders as to substitution of 'respondents' and for apportionment of costs.

Orders

  • ["Vary orders (2), (4) and (5) so that in each case the word 'respondent' is replaced with 'respondents'." 'Set aside the orders as to costs made by the trial judge on 18 July 2012 and in their place order that the defendants pay the plaintiff (Nu Line) 57.5% of its allowable costs in the Equity Division.' "Order...