Solarus Projects v Vero Insurance (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1264

Solarus Projects v Vero Insurance (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1264

Although the defendant had changed its position about calling lay evidence and the change caused understandable frustration, the Court was not satisfied that the defendant had adopted delaying tactics or that its conduct evinced delinquency in the litigation sufficient to justify indemnity costs. The application for...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Claim on an Insurance Policy / Interlocutory Application for Indemnity Costs at a Directions Hearing Concerning Preparation of a Separate Question
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs refused; costs of the directions hearing to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'wasted Costs' 'separate Question' 'directions Hearing' 'change of Litigation Position']
['costs' 'insurance Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'wasted Costs' 'separate Question' 'directions Hearing' 'change of Litigation Position']

Source-derived case record

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

Claim on an Insurance Policy / Interlocutory Application for Indemnity Costs at a Directions Hearing Concerning Preparation of a Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's change of position about calling lay evidence justified an order for wasted costs on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the costs of the directions hearing should be awarded to the first plaintiff on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant had changed its position about calling lay evidence and the change caused understandable frustration, the Court was not satisfied that the defendant had adopted delaying tactics or that its conduct evinced delinquency in the litigation sufficient to justify indemnity costs. The application for indemnity costs was therefore refused, and the costs of the directions hearing were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs refused; costs of the directions hearing to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The application for vacation of the three day listing commencing on 8 December and allocation of an earlier hearing date with a reduced estimate was acceded to.' 'The application for indemnity costs was refused.' 'The costs of the directions hearing will be costs in the cause.']