Chadwick v State of New South Wales (Costs) [2022] FCA 1279

Chadwick v State of New South Wales (Costs) [2022] FCA 1279

The appropriate order was that costs be costs in the cause because each party achieved some level of success on the competing interlocutory applications, the respondents had a proper basis for bringing the summary judgment application when filed and did not in substance fail to obtain the relief sought, and the applicant's Calderbank letter did not justify indemnity costs because the respondents improved their position and the letter did not attract Calderbank principles in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Applications / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The parties' applications for alternative costs orders were dismissed, and the costs of the interlocutory applications were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Cause' 'interlocutory Applications' 'alternative Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in the Cause' 'interlocutory Applications' 'alternative Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']

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 Following Interlocutory Applications / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs of the interlocutory applications should be costs in the cause or subject to alternative costs orders.' 'Whether the respondents should pay the costs of the summary judgment application on an indemnity basis because of non-acceptance of a Calderbank offer.' "Whether either party's success in the interlocutory applications justified an order that the other party pay costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate order was that costs be costs in the cause because each party achieved some level of success on the competing interlocutory applications, the respondents had a proper basis for bringing the summary judgment application when filed and did not in substance fail to obtain the relief sought, and the applicant's Calderbank letter did not justify indemnity costs because the respondents improved their position and the letter did not attract Calderbank principles in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

The parties' applications for alternative costs orders were dismissed, and the costs of the interlocutory applications were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The parties' applications for alternative costs orders pursuant to order 3 of the orders dated 27 September 2022 be dismissed." 'The costs of the interlocutory applications the subject of the reasons for judgment in Chadwick v State of New South Wales (Amendment Application) [2022] FCA 1138 be costs in the cause.']