Cocco v Treadtel International Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] NSWSC 31

Cocco v Treadtel International Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] NSWSC 31

The Court refused to order the Plaintiff to pay the Second Defendant's costs because the affidavit and annexed correspondence were not likely to assist the Court at the directions hearing and were unnecessary to establish the Plaintiff's default, the costs of the communications should not be isolated from other disputes in the long-running matter, the costs could have been avoided by relisting the matter once default emerged, and the directions hearing was necessary in any event to address hearing length and allocation of a hearing date after the expert report had been served.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Corporations List / Determination of Application for Costs of Affidavit, Correspondence and Attendance at Directions Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs of the relevant matters and no order as to costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['discretionary Costs Orders' 'directions Hearing' 'expert Evidence Timetable' 'non Compliance With Court Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['discretionary Costs Orders' 'directions Hearing' 'expert Evidence Timetable' 'non Compliance With Court Orders']

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 in Equity Corporations List / Determination of Application for Costs of Affidavit, Correspondence and Attendance at Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff should pay the Second Defendant's costs of preparing Mr Thompson's affidavit sworn 23 November 2018." "Whether the Plaintiff should pay the Second Defendant's costs of communications referred to in that affidavit." "Whether the Plaintiff should pay the Second Defendant's costs of attendance at the directions hearing on 26 November 2018."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order the Plaintiff to pay the Second Defendant's costs because the affidavit and annexed correspondence were not likely to assist the Court at the directions hearing and were unnecessary to establish the Plaintiff's default, the costs of the communications should not be isolated from other disputes in the long-running matter, the costs could have been avoided by relisting the matter once default emerged, and the directions hearing was necessary in any event to address hearing length and allocation of a hearing date after the expert report had been served.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs of the relevant matters and no order as to costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The order as to costs sought by the Second Defendant is not made.' 'There will be no order as to the costs of the relevant matters.' 'There will be no order as to the costs of this application.']