Hardcastle v Santos Limited (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 450

Hardcastle v Santos Limited (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 450

Indemnity costs are not ordered merely because a self-represented litigant's case is hopeless or where offers to purchase land were refused. However, indemnity costs are appropriate for costs incidental to an abandoned motion alleging egregious conduct by the plaintiff which was withdrawn without explanation.

Parties
Plaintiff: Philip Julian Hardcastle; First Defendant: Santos Limited; Second Defendant: Santos NSW Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Application Following Strike Out of Proceedings
Outcome
Defendants' application for indemnity costs generally refused; indemnity costs granted limited to costs relating to plaintiff's withdrawn motion of 7 February 2017; recusal, postponement and stay applications refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Party/party Costs, Indemnity Costs, Recusal, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Costs Party/party Costs Indemnity Costs Recusal Stay of 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Julian Hardcastle

Plaintiff

Santos Limited

First Defendant

Santos NSW Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Application Following Strike Out of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself for alleged bias
  2. 2 Whether a stay or postponement of the hearing should be granted
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs are not ordered merely because a self-represented litigant's case is hopeless or where offers to purchase land were refused. However, indemnity costs are appropriate for costs incidental to an abandoned motion alleging egregious conduct by the plaintiff which was withdrawn without explanation.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for indemnity costs generally refused; indemnity costs granted limited to costs relating to plaintiff's withdrawn motion of 7 February 2017; recusal, postponement and stay applications refused.

Orders

  • Any application by the plaintiff for recusal, postponement, or stay is refused.
  • Defendants' application for indemnity costs generally is dismissed.