Project 28 v Barr (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 801

As neither party was totally successful in the appeal concerning costs and the scope of witness statement orders, the appropriate costs order is that they be costs in the cause.

Parties: Plaintiff: Project 28 Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Timothy James Barr; Second Defendant: Barr Project Management Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Richtech Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 July 2007
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Costs Following Appeal From Associate Justice
Outcome: Neither party is ordered to pay the other's costs outright; costs of the proceedings before Associate Justice and on appeal are to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics: Costs, Appeal From Associate Justice

Procedure Costs Appeal From Associate Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Project 28 Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Timothy James Barr

First Defendant

Barr Project Management Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Richtech Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Following Appeal From Associate Justice

Legal Issues

1 Whether costs should follow the event or be costs in the cause after neither party was totally successful on appeal from an Associate Justice regarding delivery of witness statements and privilege against self-incrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

As neither party was totally successful in the appeal concerning costs and the scope of witness statement orders, the appropriate costs order is that they be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Neither party is ordered to pay the other's costs outright; costs of the proceedings before Associate Justice and on appeal are to be costs in the cause.

Orders

Costs of proceedings before Associate Justice and on appeal be costs in the cause.