Ryde Developments Pty Ltd v The Property Investors Alliance Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2016] NSWSC 1535

Ryde Developments Pty Ltd v The Property Investors Alliance Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2016] NSWSC 1535

Ryde Developments was required to pay indemnity costs of the defendants' motion filed on 18 August 2016 because the court had already given leave in principle to file the Further Amended Commercial List Response, no legitimate basis was advanced for withholding consent, and consent appeared to have been withheld for the collateral purpose of obtaining further discovery. However, Ryde Developments was not ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the discovery motion because the court did not determine the adequacy of discovery, further discovery became unnecessary only after admissions were proposed and refined, both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred, and the agreed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination of Costs of the Defendants' Motion Filed on 18 August 2016 and the Plaintiff's Motion Filed on 19 August 2016
Outcome
The defendants obtained indemnity costs of their motion filed on 18 August 2016. The plaintiff's motion filed on 19 August 2016 was dismissed, with each party otherwise bearing its or his own costs except that costs relating to determination of the defendants' admissions were made costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'further and Better Discovery' 'leave to File Further Amended Commercial List Response' 'admissions as Substitute for Discovery' 'sabre Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'discovery'] ['indemnity Costs' 'further and Better Discovery' 'leave to File Further Amended Commercial List Response' 'admissions as Substitute for Discovery' 'sabre 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

Costs / Determination of Costs of the Defendants' Motion Filed on 18 August 2016 and the Plaintiff's Motion Filed on 19 August 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs of the defendants' motion filed on 18 August 2016 on an indemnity basis." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs of the plaintiff's motion filed on 19 August 2016 concerning discovery." 'Whether costs associated with determining the admissions to be made by the defendants should be costs in the cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ryde Developments was required to pay indemnity costs of the defendants' motion filed on 18 August 2016 because the court had already given leave in principle to file the Further Amended Commercial List Response, no legitimate basis was advanced for withholding consent, and consent appeared to have been withheld for the collateral purpose of obtaining further discovery. However, Ryde Developments was not ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the discovery motion because the court did not determine the adequacy of discovery, further discovery became unnecessary only after admissions were proposed and refined, both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred, and the agreed...

Court Disposition

The defendants obtained indemnity costs of their motion filed on 18 August 2016. The plaintiff's motion filed on 19 August 2016 was dismissed, with each party otherwise bearing its or his own costs except that costs relating to determination of the defendants' admissions were made costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff pay the costs of the defendants' motion filed on 18 August 2016 assessed on an indemnity basis." "The plaintiff's motion filed on 19 August 2016 is dismissed." 'Subject to order 4, each party bear its or his own costs of the motion filed on 19 August 2016.' "The parties' costs of and incidental to...