Bagley v Pinebelt Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 830

Bagley v Pinebelt Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 830

Because the plaintiff was not and never had been Michael Abdul-Karim's client, r 43A(1)(c) supported an indemnification order; and, having regard to the conduct described in the earlier judgment as causing the necessity for the caveat proceedings and the costs application, indemnity costs were appropriate. The order was limited to costs relating to caveat 5019019V because Abdul-Karim had nothing to do with the separate rent claim, and the costs were ordered payable forthwith because that aspect of the matter was complete.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Division Proceedings / Determination of the Form of Costs Orders Against a Barrister; Balance of Proceedings Stood Over for Further Directions
Outcome
Michael Abdul-Karim was ordered to indemnify the plaintiff for costs relating to caveat 5019019V and to pay the plaintiff's costs of the costs application on the indemnity basis; those costs were made payable forthwith and the balance of the proceedings was stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['costs Against Non Parties' 'barrister Liability for Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'caveat Removal Proceedings' 'supreme Court Rules Part 52 A']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Against Non Parties' 'barrister Liability for Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'caveat Removal Proceedings' 'supreme Court Rules Part 52 A']

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 Division Proceedings / Determination of the Form of Costs Orders Against a Barrister; Balance of Proceedings Stood Over for Further Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order against Michael Abdul-Karim should be framed as indemnification under Pt 52A r 43A(1)(c) rather than payment of party/party costs.' "Whether Michael Abdul-Karim should pay the plaintiff's costs of the costs application on an indemnity basis." "Whether the costs order should be limited to the plaintiff's claims relating to caveat 5019019V and exclude the rent claim." 'Whether the costs ordered should be payable forthwith notwithstanding Part 52A r 9.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff was not and never had been Michael Abdul-Karim's client, r 43A(1)(c) supported an indemnification order; and, having regard to the conduct described in the earlier judgment as causing the necessity for the caveat proceedings and the costs application, indemnity costs were appropriate. The order was limited to costs relating to caveat 5019019V because Abdul-Karim had nothing to do with the separate rent claim, and the costs were ordered payable forthwith because that aspect of the matter was complete.

Court Disposition

Michael Abdul-Karim was ordered to indemnify the plaintiff for costs relating to caveat 5019019V and to pay the plaintiff's costs of the costs application on the indemnity basis; those costs were made payable forthwith and the balance of the proceedings was stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Order that Michael Abdul-Karim indemnify the plaintiff against the costs payable by the plaintiff in respect of his claims in these proceedings relating to caveat 5019019V.' "Order that Michael Abdul-Karim pay on the indemnity basis the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings relating to the claim that Michael...