DC v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 233

DC v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 233

Because the appellants succeeded on the appeal against the first defendant, the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and, in each proceeding, the first defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the first instance proceedings against the first defendant. However, the appellants pursued...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Appeal Upheld
Outcome
The Court made additional costs orders; the respondent's proposed variation and the appellants' proposed broader costs relief concerning the second defendant were not accepted.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal Following the Event' 'costs of Proceedings Below' 'costs of Successful Second Defendant' 'bullock Order' 'variation or Clarification of Costs Orders']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['costs of Appeal Following the Event' 'costs of Proceedings Below' 'costs of Successful Second Defendant' 'bullock Order' 'variation or Clarification of Costs Orders']

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

Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Appeal Upheld

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal." 'Whether the first instance proceedings should be treated for costs purposes as proceedings against one party rather than two.' "Whether the appellants' liability for the second defendant's costs should be limited to costs incurred separately from the first defendant's costs." 'Whether there was a basis for a Bullock order requiring the respondent to indemnify the appellants for costs payable to the second defendant.' 'Whether order 2 of the orders made on 10 August 2016 should be clarified or varied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants succeeded on the appeal against the first defendant, the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and, in each proceeding, the first defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the first instance proceedings against the first defendant. However, the appellants pursued unsuccessful claims against the second defendant, whose position significantly differed from that of the first defendant, and no basis was established for a Bullock order or for making the respondent liable for the appellants' costs of proceedings against the second defendant. The existing carve-out left extant the order that each plaintiff pay the second defendant's costs only to...

Court Disposition

The Court made additional costs orders; the respondent's proposed variation and the appellants' proposed broader costs relief concerning the second defendant were not accepted.

Orders

  • ["The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal." "In each of proceedings 2008/00289325 and 2008/00289326, the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings against the first defendant."]