Robert John Downing v WIN Television (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1257

Robert John Downing v WIN Television (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1257

The plaintiff was successful and the Supreme Court proceedings were warranted because the defendants' cross-claim and issues concerning lease, licence and trespass made the forum appropriate. The plaintiff's refusal of 1999 offers did not justify reducing costs because he was entitled to insist that the defendants leave his land. The plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs because, comparing the total offers with the judgment intended to cover total damages payable by all defendants, he did not do better than his offers. Failures on exemplary damages, the tower and nominal damages did not justify separate adverse costs orders because those matters were inextricably linked to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination After Judgment for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, subject to a reduction for the damages hearing and exclusion of Mr Paris's report; indemnity costs refused; mediation costs and interest on costs allowed.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'ucpr R 42.34' 'mediation Costs' 'interest on Costs' 'reduction of Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'ucpr R 42.34' 'mediation Costs' 'interest on Costs' 'reduction of Costs']

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 / Costs Determination After Judgment for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should obtain an order for costs having regard to UCPR r 42.34.' "Whether the plaintiff's conduct of the case and attitude to offers made by the defendants in 1999 justified a special costs order." 'Whether the plaintiff should obtain indemnity costs from 17 March 2011 or 27 May 2011 because he did better than his offers of compromise.' "Whether the plaintiff's costs should be reduced because he failed in claims for exemplary damages, retention of title to the tower, and more than nominal damages from 1 May 2008, or because of the way the damages hearing was conducted." 'Whether the costs of a mediation should be treated as costs of the proceedings.' 'Whether there should be an order for interest on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was successful and the Supreme Court proceedings were warranted because the defendants' cross-claim and issues concerning lease, licence and trespass made the forum appropriate. The plaintiff's refusal of 1999 offers did not justify reducing costs because he was entitled to insist that the defendants leave his land. The plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs because, comparing the total offers with the judgment intended to cover total damages payable by all defendants, he did not do better than his offers. Failures on exemplary damages, the tower and nominal damages did not justify separate adverse costs orders because those matters were inextricably linked to the...

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, subject to a reduction for the damages hearing and exclusion of Mr Paris's report; indemnity costs refused; mediation costs and interest on costs allowed.

Orders

  • ["Subject to order 2, the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings (including all reserved costs and the costs of the mediation) on the ordinary basis." "In relation to the costs of the hearing on 6 and 7 June 2011, together with work done in preparation for that hearing, the defendants pay 60 percent...