Wilson v Gilles (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 658

Wilson v Gilles (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 658

There was insufficient basis to depart from the default rule that costs of the interlocutory motion are costs in the cause; neither indemnity costs nor special costs orders were warranted as the plaintiff's application was not entirely without prospects nor was his conduct unreasonable, and a significant catalyst for the motion was the law firm's conduct regarding the Law Society's guidance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Post Interlocutory Motion, Costs Determination
Outcome
No costs orders made in respect of the motion.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' "solicitor's Duties" 'conflict of Interest' 'family Law Property Proceedings']
['equity' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' "solicitor's Duties" 'conflict of Interest' 'family Law Property 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Equity Proceedings / Post Interlocutory Motion, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the plaintiff for failed interlocutory motion' 'Whether the conduct of the law firm or parties displaced default rule as to costs of interlocutory application']

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient basis to depart from the default rule that costs of the interlocutory motion are costs in the cause; neither indemnity costs nor special costs orders were warranted as the plaintiff's application was not entirely without prospects nor was his conduct unreasonable, and a significant catalyst for the motion was the law firm's conduct regarding the Law Society's guidance.

Court Disposition

No costs orders made in respect of the motion.

Orders

  • ["No order as to the defendants' costs of the plaintiff's motion filed on 14 May 2020."]