Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1531

Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1531

The plaintiff's failure to address plainly identified deficiencies in pleading the oral publication, delays concerning interrogatories, and decision not to use the interrogatory after obtaining leave were unreasonable and unnecessarily prolonged the resolution of issues, justifying indemnity costs under r 42.2. However, the defendants' success on interlocutory objections to the form of pleadings was within the ordinary class of such applications and was not sufficiently detached or exceptional to justify costs being payable forthwith under r 42.7.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Defamation Proceedings / After Determination of Objections to the Plaintiff's Pleading Against the First and Sixth Defendants
Outcome
First and sixth defendants' application for special costs order successful in part; parties to be heard as to form of order.
Legal Topics
['objections to Pleading' 'indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Costs Payable Forthwith' 'interrogatories' 'striking Out Pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['objections to Pleading' 'indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Costs Payable Forthwith' 'interrogatories' 'striking Out Pleadings']

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 in Defamation Proceedings / After Determination of Objections to the Plaintiff's Pleading Against the First and Sixth Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and sixth defendants should have their costs of the application concerning objections to the pleading.' "Whether the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable or unnecessarily prolonged resolution of the issues so as to justify indemnity costs." 'Whether the costs of the interlocutory application should be payable forthwith before the conclusion of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's failure to address plainly identified deficiencies in pleading the oral publication, delays concerning interrogatories, and decision not to use the interrogatory after obtaining leave were unreasonable and unnecessarily prolonged the resolution of issues, justifying indemnity costs under r 42.2. However, the defendants' success on interlocutory objections to the form of pleadings was within the ordinary class of such applications and was not sufficiently detached or exceptional to justify costs being payable forthwith under r 42.7.

Court Disposition

First and sixth defendants' application for special costs order successful in part; parties to be heard as to form of order.

Orders

  • ['The first and sixth defendants are entitled to their costs of the application assessed on an indemnity basis.' 'The application for an order that the costs be payable forthwith was refused.' 'Parties to be heard as to the form of orders.']