PROKART RACING P/L v SHAKYA [2001] NSWCA 409

PROKART RACING P/L v SHAKYA [2001] NSWCA 409

Because the second proceedings and consolidation deprived the proposed appeal and cross-appeal of practical utility, and because both parties contributed to the procedural stalemate and the costs incurred, each party should bear its or his own costs of the relevant District Court attendances and Court of Appeal applications, appeal and cross-appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment in Appeal and Cross Appeal From Interlocutory District Court Orders / Court of Appeal Determined Costs After Revoking Leave to Appeal and Leave to Cross Appeal
Outcome
Each party to pay its or his own costs.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Cross Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'joinder' 'consolidated Proceedings' 'procedural Miscarriages' 'motor Accidents Act 1988']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'motor Accidents' 'personal Injury'] ['revocation of Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Cross Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'joinder' 'consolidated Proceedings' 'procedural Miscarriages' 'motor Accidents Act 1988']

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 Judgment in Appeal and Cross Appeal From Interlocutory District Court Orders / Court of Appeal Determined Costs After Revoking Leave to Appeal and Leave to Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made after leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal were revoked.' 'Whether an additional condition should be added concerning costs of District Court attendances on 19 July 2000 and 2 August 2000.' 'Whether the appeal and cross-appeal had sufficient utility given the respondent had commenced second proceedings and the proceedings had been consolidated.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the second proceedings and consolidation deprived the proposed appeal and cross-appeal of practical utility, and because both parties contributed to the procedural stalemate and the costs incurred, each party should bear its or his own costs of the relevant District Court attendances and Court of Appeal applications, appeal and cross-appeal.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its or his own costs.

Orders

  • ['Condition (5) be added to the order of 12 November 2001 revoking leave to appeal: Notwithstanding order 7 of the orders of Judge Sidis of 2 August 2000 each party to proceedings 8446/98 is to pay its or his own costs of attendances in the proceedings on 19 July 2000 and 2 August 2000.' 'Each party is to pay its or...