Everett v Neale [2012] NSWDC 83

Everett v Neale [2012] NSWDC 83

The Court declined to alter the previous costs order because the defendant's new requests for a gross sum and disgorgement by the plaintiff's lawyers were raised too late, would require further hearings and representation, lacked evidentiary and legal foundation, and there was no evidence permitting a fair assessment of $50,000 or justifying removal of the limitation on compensation for the self-represented defendant's own time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs / Further Written Submissions on Costs After Judgment and Previous Costs Order
Outcome
Application to alter the previous costs order declined.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Costs Order' 'specified Gross Sum Costs' 'costs Orders Against Non Parties' 'self Represented Litigant Costs' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['amendment of Costs Order' 'specified Gross Sum Costs' 'costs Orders Against Non Parties' 'self Represented Litigant Costs' 'indemnity 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

Costs / Further Written Submissions on Costs After Judgment and Previous Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the previous costs order made on 11 May 2012 should be altered to award a specified gross sum for costs.' 'Whether the defendant should be awarded $50,000 as a specified gross sum for costs.' "Whether benefits or payments received by the plaintiff's counsel and solicitors should be transferred to the defendant by way of costs." "Whether the limitation excluding compensation for the defendant's time spent preparing and conducting his case should be removed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to alter the previous costs order because the defendant's new requests for a gross sum and disgorgement by the plaintiff's lawyers were raised too late, would require further hearings and representation, lacked evidentiary and legal foundation, and there was no evidence permitting a fair assessment of $50,000 or justifying removal of the limitation on compensation for the self-represented defendant's own time.

Court Disposition

Application to alter the previous costs order declined.

Orders

  • ['Decline to amend the previous cost order made in these proceedings on 11 May 2012.' 'Decline to alter order 3 made in this matter on 11 May 2012.']