Paige v FPI Limited & Anor [2001] NSWSC 734

Paige v FPI Limited & Anor [2001] NSWSC 734

The plaintiffs were entitled to their costs against the first and third defendants because the abandoned and modified allegations did not impose any significant additional burden or justify depriving them of costs; however, no further order should be made regarding the second defendant's costs because the claim against the second defendant had no prospect of success on the evidence and was not induced by, dependent on, or necessarily involved with the conduct of the first or third defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs / Judgment on Application for Costs After Verdict for the Plaintiffs
Outcome
The first and third defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs; no further order was made with respect to the second defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'costs Following Verdict' 'abandoned Claims' "second Defendant's Costs"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['bullock Order' 'costs Following Verdict' 'abandoned Claims' "second Defendant's 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 / Judgment on Application for Costs After Verdict for the Plaintiffs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should obtain a bullock order with respect to the costs of the second defendant.' "Whether the first and third defendants should pay the whole of the plaintiffs' costs or whether the plaintiffs should be deprived of part of their costs because some allegations or damages claims were abandoned or modified."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were entitled to their costs against the first and third defendants because the abandoned and modified allegations did not impose any significant additional burden or justify depriving them of costs; however, no further order should be made regarding the second defendant's costs because the claim against the second defendant had no prospect of success on the evidence and was not induced by, dependent on, or necessarily involved with the conduct of the first or third defendants.

Court Disposition

The first and third defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs; no further order was made with respect to the second defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ["The first and third defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs." 'The exhibits may be returned after twenty-eight days.']