Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [No.2] [2008] NSWCA 221

Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [No.2] [2008] NSWCA 221

The order for costs made on 4 August 2008 was confirmed because the Council's Calderbank offer was entitled to little weight, the appellant's delays and inefficiencies had already attracted costs orders and did not justify indemnity costs, and the Council's failure to comply with UCPR Pt 51.41 deprived it of any...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal / Cross Applications to Vary the Order for Costs Made on 4 August 2008 After Leave to Appeal Was Refused and the Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
Cross applications to vary the order for costs made on 4 August 2008 dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'competency of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'calderbank Offer' 'notice of Motion to Dismiss Incompetent Appeal']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'competency of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'calderbank Offer' 'notice of Motion to Dismiss Incompetent Appeal']

Source-derived case record

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 Application in Appeal / Cross Applications to Vary the Order for Costs Made on 4 August 2008 After Leave to Appeal Was Refused and the Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made on 4 August 2008 should be varied to require the appellant to pay costs on an indemnity basis.' "Whether the respondent's failure to file a notice of motion objecting to the competency of the appeal affected its entitlement to costs." "Whether the Calderbank offer and the appellant's delays and inefficiencies justified indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The order for costs made on 4 August 2008 was confirmed because the Council's Calderbank offer was entitled to little weight, the appellant's delays and inefficiencies had already attracted costs orders and did not justify indemnity costs, and the Council's failure to comply with UCPR Pt 51.41 deprived it of any entitlement to indemnity costs for that part of the appeal; however, because further costs of the leave application would still have been incurred, there was no reason to deprive the Council of costs or order it to pay the appellant's costs.

Court Disposition

Cross applications to vary the order for costs made on 4 August 2008 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Cross applications to vary the order for costs made on 4 August 2008 dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']