Balzola v Passas (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1200

Balzola v Passas (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1200

The plaintiff succeeded only partially and only against the first defendant, and offers made did not warrant indemnity costs. The general rule applies: the first defendant pays two-thirds of the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis for proceedings against her. The successful second defendant is entitled to his ordinary costs to be paid by the plaintiff, excluding earlier adverse costs orders, and a Sanderson or Bullock order is not appropriate as the claims against the defendants were distinct and not caused by first defendant’s conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings (costs Decision) / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Outcome
Orders made as to costs
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'proportionality of Costs' 'defamation' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']
['costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'proportionality of Costs' 'defamation' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']

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

Defamation Proceedings (costs Decision) / Costs Determination Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant' "Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the second defendant's costs" 'Whether a Sanderson or Bullock order should be made' 'In what proportion the first defendant should pay the plaintiff’s costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff succeeded only partially and only against the first defendant, and offers made did not warrant indemnity costs. The general rule applies: the first defendant pays two-thirds of the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis for proceedings against her. The successful second defendant is entitled to his ordinary costs to be paid by the plaintiff, excluding earlier adverse costs orders, and a Sanderson or Bullock order is not appropriate as the claims against the defendants were distinct and not caused by first defendant’s conduct.

Court Disposition

Orders made as to costs

Orders

  • ['Confirmed the costs orders made in favour of the plaintiff by Justice McCallum on 12 November 2018, Justice Campbell on 10 December 2018 and Justice Hoeben CJ at CL on 22 March 2019.' 'Subject to the above, the first defendant is to pay two-thirds of the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis so far as those...