Mendonca v Tonna [2024] NSWCA 288

Mendonca v Tonna [2024] NSWCA 288

The application for a costs capping order was refused as the appellant failed to show evidence or reason to anticipate disruptive, obstructive or vindictive conduct by the respondents that would justify capping costs. The issue of leave to appeal interlocutory or consent orders was stood over, as requirements for leave depend on whether such orders impact the final outcome.

Parties
Appellant: Renuka Maria Mendonca; First Respondent: Mark Julian Tonna; Second Respondent: Lorraine Mary Tonna
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Appeal / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Appellant's notice of motion for costs capping order dismissed; extension of time to appeal interlocutory orders stood over; appellant to pay respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedures, Costs Capping Orders, Leave for Interlocutory Appeals
Civil Procedure Appeal Procedures Costs Capping Orders Leave for Interlocutory Appeals

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renuka Maria Mendonca

Appellant

Mark Julian Tonna

First Respondent

Lorraine Mary Tonna

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Appeal / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a costs capping order under r 42.4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Requirements for leave to appeal interlocutory and consent orders
  3. 3 Competency of appeal against consent and interlocutory orders

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a costs capping order was refused as the appellant failed to show evidence or reason to anticipate disruptive, obstructive or vindictive conduct by the respondents that would justify capping costs. The issue of leave to appeal interlocutory or consent orders was stood over, as requirements for leave depend on whether such orders impact the final outcome.

Court Disposition

Appellant's notice of motion for costs capping order dismissed; extension of time to appeal interlocutory orders stood over; appellant to pay respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Dismiss the appellant's notice of motion filed on 15 November 2024 seeking a costs capping order.
  • Stand over to the hearing of the appeal so much of the amended notice of motion filed on 2 December 2024 as seeks an extension of time to appeal interlocutory orders.