Day v Sternhell [2020] NSWSC 513

Day v Sternhell [2020] NSWSC 513

The proper exercise of the Court's discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) was to make no order as to costs because the central issue on the motion was resolved by consent without a contested determination, there was no event decided in favour of one party, no party was almost certain to have succeeded, the caveat's validity and alleged defect were arguable rather than clear, and there was no marked difference in the reasonableness of the conduct of the plaintiffs, the company, and Mr Wykrota.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Interlocutory Proceedings Concerning a Notice of Motion for Extension of a Caveat / On the Papers After Consent Orders Were Made in Relation to the Motion
Outcome
No order as to costs of Notice of Motion filed on 23 December 2019.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'caveats' 'lapsing Notice' 'extension of Caveat' 'specific Performance' 'costs Discretion']
['costs' 'real Property' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'caveats' 'lapsing Notice' 'extension of Caveat' 'specific Performance' 'costs Discretion']

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 Determination in Interlocutory Proceedings Concerning a Notice of Motion for Extension of a Caveat / On the Papers After Consent Orders Were Made in Relation to the Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs, Mr Wykrota, or the company should receive costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 23 December 2019.' 'Whether there had been an event decided in favour of one party and against another.' 'Whether one party was almost certain to have succeeded had there been a contested hearing on extension of caveat AP20026.' "Whether there was a marked difference in the reasonableness of the parties' conduct concerning the lapsing notice and motion." "Whether the plaintiffs' caveat was clearly valid or defective because it was too wide."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proper exercise of the Court's discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) was to make no order as to costs because the central issue on the motion was resolved by consent without a contested determination, there was no event decided in favour of one party, no party was almost certain to have succeeded, the caveat's validity and alleged defect were arguable rather than clear, and there was no marked difference in the reasonableness of the conduct of the plaintiffs, the company, and Mr Wykrota.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of Notice of Motion filed on 23 December 2019.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 23 December 2019.']