Minogue v Rudd (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 384

Minogue v Rudd (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 384

Mr Rudd should pay DMW's costs of DMW's cross-appeal because he brought DMW into the appeal proceedings to preserve a fallback contribution position if the appellant succeeded against him, DMW's corresponding contribution claim was inevitable, and it was not DMW's fault that the Court did not need to determine the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeals
Outcome
Orders made for costs in addition to those made on 22 October 2013.
Legal Topics
['appeal Costs' 'cross Appeal Costs' 'contribution Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['appeal Costs' 'cross Appeal Costs' 'contribution Claims']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeals

  1. 1 ["What order, if any, should be made concerning the costs of DMW Carpentry Services Pty Ltd's cross-appeal against Mr Rudd."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Rudd should pay DMW's costs of DMW's cross-appeal because he brought DMW into the appeal proceedings to preserve a fallback contribution position if the appellant succeeded against him, DMW's corresponding contribution claim was inevitable, and it was not DMW's fault that the Court did not need to determine the merits of the claims between Mr Rudd and DMW.

Court Disposition

Orders made for costs in addition to those made on 22 October 2013.

Orders

  • ["Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appellant's appeal." 'Order the respondent to pay the costs of DMW Carpentry Services Pty Ltd ("DMW") of the respondent\'s and DMW\'s cross-appeals.']