Scanlon v Tai [2014] NSWSC 751

Scanlon v Tai [2014] NSWSC 751

The plaintiff was entitled to bring the motion and had effectively succeeded in relation to the payment obligation, because the defendants were required to pay $15,000 by 28 February 2014 and did not do so until after the motion was filed. However, the plaintiff did not obtain any practical further relief on the information obligation, because the defendants had responded in January 2014 in effectively the same terms as the result ultimately achieved and the subpoenas and notices produced nil return. The result was effectively mixed success, so the fairest order was that each party bear his own costs of the plaintiff's motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Costs of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Enforce Settlement Deed
Outcome
Each party to bear his own costs of the plaintiff's motion. Notice of discontinuance to be filed within 48 hours.
Legal Topics
['application to Enforce Settlement Deed' 'costs of Interlocutory Motion' 'payment Obligation Under Deed' 'information Handover and Destruction Obligation']
['costs' 'defamation' 'contract'] ['application to Enforce Settlement Deed' 'costs of Interlocutory Motion' 'payment Obligation Under Deed' 'information Handover and Destruction Obligation']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Costs of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Enforce Settlement Deed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs of and concerning the notice of motion to enforce the settlement deed." "Whether the plaintiff was entitled to bring the motion in relation to the defendants' payment obligation under the deed." "Whether costs should be awarded for the plaintiff's pursuit of the information obligation under the deed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to bring the motion and had effectively succeeded in relation to the payment obligation, because the defendants were required to pay $15,000 by 28 February 2014 and did not do so until after the motion was filed. However, the plaintiff did not obtain any practical further relief on the information obligation, because the defendants had responded in January 2014 in effectively the same terms as the result ultimately achieved and the subpoenas and notices produced nil return. The result was effectively mixed success, so the fairest order was that each party bear his own costs of the plaintiff's motion.

Court Disposition

Each party to bear his own costs of the plaintiff's motion. Notice of discontinuance to be filed within 48 hours.

Orders

  • ["Each party to bear his own costs of the plaintiff's motion." 'Notice of discontinuance to be filed within 48 hours.']