OPSM v Taylor [2005] NSWSC 81
The interlocutory application was necessitated by the defendant’s refusal to consent to continuation of the existing regime, and the plaintiff’s proposed regime was a reasonable response to the attitude and evidence of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff should have its costs of the interlocutory application.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Consent Orders
- Outcome
- Costs order in favour of the plaintiff for the interlocutory application.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'restraint of Trade' 'patient Records' 'consent Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Consent Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant/plaintiff' 'Whether costs should be costs in the proceedings or costs of the application' 'Reasonableness of actions and proposals of the parties in interlocutory matters']
Ratio Decidendi
The interlocutory application was necessitated by the defendant’s refusal to consent to continuation of the existing regime, and the plaintiff’s proposed regime was a reasonable response to the attitude and evidence of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff should have its costs of the interlocutory application.
Court Disposition
Costs order in favour of the plaintiff for the interlocutory application.
Orders
- ['The defendant must pay the plaintiff’s costs of its notice of motion for continued interlocutory relief filed on 10 February 2005.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment