Michales v Dimoski and Ors (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 591

Michales v Dimoski and Ors (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 591

There were no grounds, including lack of disentitling conduct or financial hardship, to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event; therefore, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Michales; First Respondent: Sash Dimoski; Second Respondent: Hurstville City Council; Third Respondent: Bernard Cohen; Fourth Respondent: Shifa Li
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Notice of Motion to Reopen Proceedings
Outcome
Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to the First and Second Respondents.
Legal Topics
Costs, Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Costs, Reopening Proceedings
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Costs Reopening Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Michales

Applicant

Sash Dimoski

First Respondent

Hurstville City Council

Second Respondent

Bernard Cohen

Third Respondent

Shifa Li

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Notice of Motion to Reopen Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be ordered to pay the Respondents' costs after dismissal of an application to reopen proceedings
  2. 2 Relevance of Applicant's conduct and financial hardship to costs order

Ratio Decidendi

There were no grounds, including lack of disentitling conduct or financial hardship, to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event; therefore, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to the First and Second Respondents.

Orders

  • The Applicant's Notice of Motion filed 11 May 2007 is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents' costs.