Bates v Lloyd [2005] NSWSC 1253

Bates v Lloyd [2005] NSWSC 1253

It was only the filing and service of the enforcement motion that compelled the defendant to comply with the order. Given her prolonged and intentional non-compliance, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs for the motion, notwithstanding the absence of a renewed warning letter or minor procedural issues.

Parties
Plaintiff: Philip William Bates; Defendant: Jocelyn Estelle Lloyd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Suit for Enforcement of Order (equity) / Post Settlement Costs Application Following Motion for Enforcement/contempt
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion for enforcement on the indemnity basis; motion otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Enforcement of Court Orders, Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreements
Equity Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement of Court Orders Contempt of Court Settlement Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip William Bates

Plaintiff

Jocelyn Estelle Lloyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Suit for Enforcement of Order (equity) / Post Settlement Costs Application Following Motion for Enforcement/contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis for a motion for enforcement/contempt after delayed compliance with a court order.
  2. 2 Whether a failure to give renewed warning before motion barred the award of costs on the indemnity basis.
  3. 3 Whether procedural or technical objections preclude the award of costs for the enforcement motion.

Ratio Decidendi

It was only the filing and service of the enforcement motion that compelled the defendant to comply with the order. Given her prolonged and intentional non-compliance, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs for the motion, notwithstanding the absence of a renewed warning letter or minor procedural issues.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion for enforcement on the indemnity basis; motion otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's notice of motion of 7 March 2005 dismissed.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of that motion on the indemnity basis.