Morton v The Transport Appeal Board & Anor (No2) [2007] NSWSC 1482

Morton v The Transport Appeal Board & Anor (No2) [2007] NSWSC 1482

Although the plaintiff failed on the breach of contract claim and on some aspects of judicial review, the evidence and many submissions overlapped with the successful judicial review claim, the failed issues were not dominant or separable, and their pursuit was not unreasonable; therefore apportionment was not appropriate and the second Defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Breach of Contract Proceedings / Costs Determination After Judgment
Outcome
The second Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Transport Appeals Board Decision' 'contract of Employment' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Follow the Event']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review of Transport Appeals Board Decision' 'contract of Employment' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Follow the Event']

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

Judicial Review and Breach of Contract Proceedings / Costs Determination After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs should follow the plaintiff's success on judicial review despite his failure on the breach of contract claim." 'Whether there should be an apportionment of costs because the second defendant succeeded on one of the issues raised.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff failed on the breach of contract claim and on some aspects of judicial review, the evidence and many submissions overlapped with the successful judicial review claim, the failed issues were not dominant or separable, and their pursuit was not unreasonable; therefore apportionment was not appropriate and the second Defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs.

Court Disposition

The second Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The second Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed."]