The New South Wales Bar Association v Clarence James Stevens [2005] NSWCA 351

The New South Wales Bar Association v Clarence James Stevens [2005] NSWCA 351

The orders reserving costs in the interlocutory proceedings and in CA 41214 of 2002 were not resolved by the later consent costs order, but because the Claimant gave no satisfactory explanation for the failure to deal with the reserved costs and delayed almost two years before filing the Notice of Motion, the proper exercise of the costs discretion was that each party pay its own costs in proceedings No 13263 of 2002 and CA 41214 of 2002, including the Notice of Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Costs in Practising Certificate Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination on the Papers After Reserved Costs Were Not Dealt With in Final Orders
Outcome
Notice of Motion resolved by ordering each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['reserved Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'practising Certificate Cancellation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['reserved Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'practising Certificate Cancellation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Costs in Practising Certificate Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination on the Papers After Reserved Costs Were Not Dealt With in Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the consent costs order entered on 19 September 2003 in proceedings No 13263 of 2002 encompassed the costs reserved in the interlocutory proceedings before Greg James J.' 'Whether the reserved costs in CA 41214 of 2002 were covered by the consent order in the Supreme Court proceedings.' 'How the Court should exercise its discretion as to costs after the Claimant delayed in seeking orders dealing with the reserved costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The orders reserving costs in the interlocutory proceedings and in CA 41214 of 2002 were not resolved by the later consent costs order, but because the Claimant gave no satisfactory explanation for the failure to deal with the reserved costs and delayed almost two years before filing the Notice of Motion, the proper exercise of the costs discretion was that each party pay its own costs in proceedings No 13263 of 2002 and CA 41214 of 2002, including the Notice of Motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion resolved by ordering each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Each party pay its own costs in proceedings No 13263 of 2002 and CA 41214 of 2002.' 'Each party pay its own costs of the Notice of Motion presently before the Court.']