Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 213

Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 213

As the respondent remained successful against the appellants on liability, and the reduction in damages did not justify disturbing the primary judge's orders as to costs of the proceedings below, those costs orders were confirmed. The distinct outcomes on appeal as to liability and damages justified the respondent paying 10 per cent of the appeal costs of the first and third appellants, with no order as to costs between the second appellant and the respondent. No basis existed for inter-appellant indemnity regarding costs, as that would require a cross-claim at first instance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination After Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Orders as to costs made: primary judge's costs orders confirmed; respondent to pay 10% of first and third appellants' appeal costs; no order as to costs between second appellant and respondent on appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'appeals' 'apportionment of Costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeals' 'apportionment of Costs']

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

Appeal / Costs Determination After Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether to disturb the primary judge's orders as to costs after appeal resulted in reduction of damages but not overturning liability" 'How to apportion costs of the appeal given mixed success among parties']

Ratio Decidendi

As the respondent remained successful against the appellants on liability, and the reduction in damages did not justify disturbing the primary judge's orders as to costs of the proceedings below, those costs orders were confirmed. The distinct outcomes on appeal as to liability and damages justified the respondent paying 10 per cent of the appeal costs of the first and third appellants, with no order as to costs between the second appellant and the respondent. No basis existed for inter-appellant indemnity regarding costs, as that would require a cross-claim at first instance.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs made: primary judge's costs orders confirmed; respondent to pay 10% of first and third appellants' appeal costs; no order as to costs between second appellant and respondent on appeal.

Orders

  • ['Confirm orders (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the District Court made on 11 March 2011 in relation to the costs of those proceedings as between the first, second and third appellants and the respondent.' 'Order that the respondent pay 10 per cent of the costs of the appeal of the first and third appellants.' 'No order...