Quest Rose Hill Pty Limited v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 64025 & Anor [2013] NSWSC 670

Quest Rose Hill Pty Limited v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 64025 & Anor [2013] NSWSC 670

Although all parties had mixed success, the plaintiff was largely unsuccessful against the first defendant and unsuccessful on key construction issues against the second and third defendants. Because significant time was also spent on unsuccessful issues raised by the defendants, a fair exercise of the costs discretion was to require the plaintiff to pay 50% of the first defendant's costs of the proceedings and 50% of the second and third defendants' costs of the trial, with no additional special costs order for debating final orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs / Post Judgment Determination of Whether to Apportion Costs After Judgment Given on 13 December 2012
Outcome
Costs apportioned; plaintiff ordered to pay 50% of the first defendant's costs and 50% of the second and third defendants' costs of the trial, with no special costs order for debate about final orders and the existing costs-thrown-away order to stand.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs' 'mixed Success' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Thrown Away']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['apportionment of Costs' 'mixed Success' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 / Post Judgment Determination of Whether to Apportion Costs After Judgment Given on 13 December 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs of the proceedings should be apportioned where each party had a mixture of success and failure.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs notwithstanding the first defendant's unsuccessful cross-claim arguments." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the second and third defendants' costs of the trial." 'Whether a special costs order should be made for time spent debating the form of final relief.' 'Whether the existing order for costs thrown away by amendments after discontinuance against the third defendant should stand.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although all parties had mixed success, the plaintiff was largely unsuccessful against the first defendant and unsuccessful on key construction issues against the second and third defendants. Because significant time was also spent on unsuccessful issues raised by the defendants, a fair exercise of the costs discretion was to require the plaintiff to pay 50% of the first defendant's costs of the proceedings and 50% of the second and third defendants' costs of the trial, with no additional special costs order for debating final orders.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; plaintiff ordered to pay 50% of the first defendant's costs and 50% of the second and third defendants' costs of the trial, with no special costs order for debate about final orders and the existing costs-thrown-away order to stand.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay 50% of the first defendant's costs of the proceedings." "The plaintiff is to pay 50% of the second and third defendants' cost of the trial." 'No special order for costs is made by reason of additional time being taken in debating the terms of the orders.' 'The order that the plaintiff pay...