HEARSE & ANOR v PALLISTER & ORS [2011] NSWSC 1064

HEARSE & ANOR v PALLISTER & ORS [2011] NSWSC 1064

There was a sufficient basis for the plaintiffs to bring and continue proceedings against Mrs Pallister up to the time judgment setting aside default judgment was delivered. Plaintiffs' conduct was not unreasonable or blameworthy to warrant indemnity costs. The cross-claim for indemnity against the Solicitors was misconceived as there was no circumstance in which Mrs Pallister could have succeeded on the cross-claim unless actual authority was established, in which case the Solicitors would not be liable for indemnity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Discontinuance Decision on Costs Orders
Outcome
Applications by the second defendant for indemnity costs and for a Bullock or Sanderson order refused.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'bullock and Sanderson Orders' 'agency']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'bullock and Sanderson Orders' 'agency']

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 Application / Post Discontinuance Decision on Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should pay indemnity costs to the second defendant after discontinuance' "Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order should be made so that the plaintiffs pay the second defendant's costs of the cross-claim against the Solicitors"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was a sufficient basis for the plaintiffs to bring and continue proceedings against Mrs Pallister up to the time judgment setting aside default judgment was delivered. Plaintiffs' conduct was not unreasonable or blameworthy to warrant indemnity costs. The cross-claim for indemnity against the Solicitors was misconceived as there was no circumstance in which Mrs Pallister could have succeeded on the cross-claim unless actual authority was established, in which case the Solicitors would not be liable for indemnity.

Court Disposition

Applications by the second defendant for indemnity costs and for a Bullock or Sanderson order refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for indemnity costs by the second defendant against the plaintiffs dismissed.' 'Application for a Bullock or Sanderson order for costs of the cross-claim refused.']