Rickard Constructions Pty Limited v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 241

Rickard Constructions Pty Limited v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 241

SST's failure to appear on 26 October 2005 and its subsequent failure or refusal to produce documents as agreed caused unnecessary further appearances on 28 October 2005 and 1 November 2005. Those costs could have been avoided, so SST should pay the second defendant's costs thrown away for those appearances. Because of differing accounts of the events concerning 4 November 2005, each party should bear its own costs for that appearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Costs Thrown Away in Relation to Appearances for a Notice to Produce / Amended Notice of Motion Heard on 9 March 2006
Outcome
SST Consulting Services Pty Limited was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs thrown away for appearances on 26 October 2005, 28 October 2005 and 1 November 2005; each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the appearance on 4 November 2005.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'notice to Produce' 'non Party Litigation Funder' 'privilege Claims']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'notice to Produce' 'non Party Litigation Funder' 'privilege Claims']

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 Application Concerning Costs Thrown Away in Relation to Appearances for a Notice to Produce / Amended Notice of Motion Heard on 9 March 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether SST Consulting Services Pty Limited should pay the second defendant's costs thrown away for appearances on 26 October 2005, 28 October 2005, 1 November 2005 and 4 November 2005 in relation to the Notice to Produce dated 7 October 2005." 'Whether the application should be entertained despite not having been made to the Registrar on the days of the appearances.']

Ratio Decidendi

SST's failure to appear on 26 October 2005 and its subsequent failure or refusal to produce documents as agreed caused unnecessary further appearances on 28 October 2005 and 1 November 2005. Those costs could have been avoided, so SST should pay the second defendant's costs thrown away for those appearances. Because of differing accounts of the events concerning 4 November 2005, each party should bear its own costs for that appearance.

Court Disposition

SST Consulting Services Pty Limited was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs thrown away for appearances on 26 October 2005, 28 October 2005 and 1 November 2005; each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the appearance on 4 November 2005.

Orders

  • ["SST pay the second defendant's costs thrown away in respect of the appearances on 26 October 2005, 28 October 2005 and 1 November 2005." 'In respect of the appearance on 4 November 2005, each party pay their own costs.' 'If the parties are unable to agree on a costs order in respect of this Motion, argument will...