Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 6) [2010] NSWCA 299

Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 6) [2010] NSWCA 299

Because the fourth respondent was a successful active respondent that had sought its costs and the failure to determine that application was an oversight, the error in the Court's order should be corrected under the slip rule. The applicant's opposition to correction was unreasonable, so she should pay the fourth respondent's costs of both the proceedings and the Notice of Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / On the Papers; Notice of Motion for Costs Following Dismissal of Proceedings
Outcome
The fourth respondent's Notice of Motion was granted and the applicant was ordered to pay the fourth respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'correction of Orders' 'costs Following Unsuccessful Proceedings' 'notice of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['slip Rule' 'correction of Orders' 'costs Following Unsuccessful Proceedings' 'notice of Motion']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling / On the Papers; Notice of Motion for Costs Following Dismissal of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's omission to determine the fourth respondent's application for costs should be corrected pursuant to the slip rule." "Whether the applicant should pay the fourth respondent's costs of the proceedings and of the Notice of Motion filed on 24 September 2010."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the fourth respondent was a successful active respondent that had sought its costs and the failure to determine that application was an oversight, the error in the Court's order should be corrected under the slip rule. The applicant's opposition to correction was unreasonable, so she should pay the fourth respondent's costs of both the proceedings and the Notice of Motion.

Court Disposition

The fourth respondent's Notice of Motion was granted and the applicant was ordered to pay the fourth respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ["Order the applicant to pay the fourth respondent's costs of the proceedings." "Order the applicant to pay the fourth respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 24 September 2010."]