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']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeals
Legal Issues
- 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.']
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