Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 350

Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 350

The Second Stay Application was without merit, was dismissed, and indemnity costs should follow. The history and circumstances justified ordering the costs as a specified gross sum under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to avoid further delay and expense. The Notice of Discontinuance filed in respect of the interlocutory motion was invalid and should be removed from the Court file under r 4.15 UCPR. Interest on the specified gross sum costs is awarded from the date respondents make payment to their solicitors.

Parties
Applicant: Shirley Penson; First Respondent: Titan National Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Kathryn Wood-Weber
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judicial Review Re: Costs Orders / Costs Application Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Stay Application
Outcome
Indemnity costs application granted. Orders made for removal of invalid notice, payment of gross sum costs, and payment of interest as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Stay Applications, Indemnity Costs, Specified Gross Sum Costs, Judicial Review, Discontinuance, District Court Procedures, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Stay Applications Indemnity Costs Specified Gross Sum Costs Judicial Review Discontinuance District Court Procedures +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shirley Penson

Applicant

Titan National Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Kathryn Wood-Weber

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judicial Review Re: Costs Orders / Costs Application Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered for a dismissed stay application
  2. 2 Whether the application for specified gross sum costs is appropriate under s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether a 'Notice of Discontinuance' in respect of an interlocutory motion can be filed and should be removed under r 4.15 UCPR

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Stay Application was without merit, was dismissed, and indemnity costs should follow. The history and circumstances justified ordering the costs as a specified gross sum under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to avoid further delay and expense. The Notice of Discontinuance filed in respect of the interlocutory motion was invalid and should be removed from the Court file under r 4.15 UCPR. Interest on the specified gross sum costs is awarded from the date respondents make payment to their solicitors.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs application granted. Orders made for removal of invalid notice, payment of gross sum costs, and payment of interest as specified.

Orders

  • The Notice of Discontinuance filed on 22 September 2015 in proceedings 2015/231328 be removed from the court file, pursuant to r 4.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
  • The applicant on the notice of motion filed on 8 September 2015 pay to the respondents to that motion the sum of $7,250 as a specified gross sum, pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).