KERAMIANAKIS & ANOR v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD [NO. 2] [2008] NSWCA 3

KERAMIANAKIS & ANOR v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD [NO. 2] [2008] NSWCA 3

Neither party should receive an order for costs. The respondent's reliance on the ordinary costs-follow-the-event rule was insufficient because the appeal was dismissed for incompetency in circumstances where the jurisdictional issue was raised by the Court and both parties had acted reasonably. The appellants' reliance on the respondent's failure to object to competency was also insufficient because the policy behind early objection to competency had limited operation in those circumstances. The parties were roughly equal in their success on the merits, so the interests of justice required that costs be left where they fell.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders as to Costs in an Appeal / On Written Submissions After Judgment Dismissing the Appeal
Outcome
Applications for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'objection to Competency' 'no Order as to Costs' 'jury Findings on Imputations']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'defamation'] ['costs of Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'objection to Competency' 'no Order as to Costs' 'jury Findings on Imputations']

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

Consequential Orders as to Costs in an Appeal / On Written Submissions After Judgment Dismissing the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should receive its costs because the appeal was dismissed.' 'Whether the appellants should receive their costs because the respondent succeeded only after the appeal was found incompetent and did not object to competency in a timely fashion.' "Whether the appropriate order was to leave costs where they fell, having regard to the jurisdictional outcome and the parties' relative success on the merits."]

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party should receive an order for costs. The respondent's reliance on the ordinary costs-follow-the-event rule was insufficient because the appeal was dismissed for incompetency in circumstances where the jurisdictional issue was raised by the Court and both parties had acted reasonably. The appellants' reliance on the respondent's failure to object to competency was also insufficient because the policy behind early objection to competency had limited operation in those circumstances. The parties were roughly equal in their success on the merits, so the interests of justice required that costs be left where they fell.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Applications for costs dismissed.']