Trieu v ROOK CMIT Pty Ltd (Costs) [2024] NSWSC 304

Trieu v ROOK CMIT Pty Ltd (Costs) [2024] NSWSC 304

Indemnity costs were warranted because the plaintiff pursued an entirely untenable summary judgment application despite being put on notice of the applicable problems, failed to read or answer the defendants' submissions and failed to address the principles governing summary judgment, and also unreasonably resisted the defendants' motion for leave to amend their defence and bring a cross claim, conduct amounting to relevant misconduct contrary to the obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers Determination of the Costs of Motions After Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Grant of the Defendants' Leave to File an Amended Defence and Cross Claim.
Outcome
The defendants obtained indemnity costs of the motions.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'summary Judgment' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'cross Claim' 'overriding Purpose' 'self Represented Litigant']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'summary Judgment' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'cross Claim' 'overriding Purpose' 'self Represented Litigant']

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 / On the Papers Determination of the Costs of Motions After Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Grant of the Defendants' Leave to File an Amended Defence and Cross Claim.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's unsuccessful application for summary judgment warranted an indemnity costs order." "Whether the plaintiff's resistance to the defendants' application for leave to amend their defence and file a cross claim warranted an indemnity costs order." "Whether the plaintiff's conduct involved relevant misconduct in the proceedings contrary to obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were warranted because the plaintiff pursued an entirely untenable summary judgment application despite being put on notice of the applicable problems, failed to read or answer the defendants' submissions and failed to address the principles governing summary judgment, and also unreasonably resisted the defendants' motion for leave to amend their defence and bring a cross claim, conduct amounting to relevant misconduct contrary to the obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The defendants obtained indemnity costs of the motions.

Orders

  • ["Mr Trieu bear the defendants' costs of the motions on an indemnity basis."]