Goldberg v Randel (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 283

Goldberg v Randel (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 283

Given delays and defaults by both parties and mixed success on interlocutory issues, it is appropriate for the costs of each relevant hearing and this application to be costs in the cause, rather than awarding costs to either party at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs of 20 June, 1 August, 8 August, 5 September, and 3 October 2008, as well as this application, are to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings']

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs for multiple interlocutory proceedings in defamation litigation should be awarded to the defendant or left to be costs in the cause']

Ratio Decidendi

Given delays and defaults by both parties and mixed success on interlocutory issues, it is appropriate for the costs of each relevant hearing and this application to be costs in the cause, rather than awarding costs to either party at this stage.

Court Disposition

Costs of 20 June, 1 August, 8 August, 5 September, and 3 October 2008, as well as this application, are to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Costs of 20 June, 1 August, 8 August, 5 September and 3 October 2008 to be costs in the cause.' 'Costs of this application to be costs in the cause.']