Snowy Valleys Council v Evans & Anor (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 711

Snowy Valleys Council v Evans & Anor (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 711

The Court made a specified gross sum costs order because the normal costs assessment procedure risked provoking Mr Evans to create further artificial documents and turning the assessment into an occasion for delay or vexatious conduct; the Council's evidence gave sufficient particulars for the Court to reach a fair gross sum; the professional costs and disbursements were fair and reasonable; and the 15% discount to professional costs was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order / Motion Heard After First Judgment
Outcome
Specified gross sum costs order made under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) in the sum of $30,063.57, with judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for that amount for costs.
Legal Topics
['specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c)' 'risk of Delay or Vexatious Conduct in Costs Assessment' 'personal Property Securities Register']
['costs' 'equity'] ['specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c)' 'risk of Delay or Vexatious Conduct in Costs Assessment' 'personal Property Securities Register']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application for a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order / Motion Heard After First Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) to fix a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs.' 'Whether the claimed professional costs and disbursements were fair and reasonable for the purpose of making a specified gross sum costs order.' 'Whether a 15% discount to professional costs was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made a specified gross sum costs order because the normal costs assessment procedure risked provoking Mr Evans to create further artificial documents and turning the assessment into an occasion for delay or vexatious conduct; the Council's evidence gave sufficient particulars for the Court to reach a fair gross sum; the professional costs and disbursements were fair and reasonable; and the 15% discount to professional costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Specified gross sum costs order made under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) in the sum of $30,063.57, with judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for that amount for costs.

Orders

  • ['The Court makes an order for the payment of a specified gross sum of $30,063.57 instead of assessed costs under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c).' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $30,063.57 for costs.' 'Adjourn this matter to 9.30am on 9 December 2021 with a view to the final...