Stevens v Professional Helicopter Services; Stryker Australia v Professional Helicopter Services [2020] NSWSC 1874

Stevens v Professional Helicopter Services; Stryker Australia v Professional Helicopter Services [2020] NSWSC 1874

The Court declined to vary the earlier costs order because the separate determination was a sensible, necessary and useful step in the proceedings, brought clarity to the relevant regime, and would limit the issues and overall costs; there was no reason to disadvantage the plaintiff by making an adverse costs order for taking that step.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers Application by the Defendant to Vary a Costs Order Made After Determination of a Separate Question
Outcome
Order 2 of 20 October 2020 confirmed; the defendant's request to vary the costs order was refused.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Order' 'separate Determination' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion' "civil Aviation (carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (cth) Liability"]
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'aviation Liability'] ['variation of Costs Order' 'separate Determination' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion' "civil Aviation (carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (cth) Liability"]

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 Application by the Defendant to Vary a Costs Order Made After Determination of a Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Order 2 of 20 October 2020, that costs of the notices of motion are to be each party's costs in the proceedings, should be varied." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of the separate determination on a party/party basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to vary the earlier costs order because the separate determination was a sensible, necessary and useful step in the proceedings, brought clarity to the relevant regime, and would limit the issues and overall costs; there was no reason to disadvantage the plaintiff by making an adverse costs order for taking that step.

Court Disposition

Order 2 of 20 October 2020 confirmed; the defendant's request to vary the costs order was refused.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 of 20 October 2020 is confirmed.']