Hundy v Turner [2019] NSWSC 1881

Hundy v Turner [2019] NSWSC 1881

A specified gross sum costs order was appropriate because the defendant, through her solicitor, persistently failed to engage with the plaintiff's solicitors in resolving a relatively simple costs claim and gave no evidence explaining that conduct, creating a real concern that any assessment process would be inefficient and disproportionate. The plaintiff's evidence gave the Court a sufficient basis to make a rational assessment of costs. Applying discounts to the incurred and estimated costs, and taking account of the plaintiff's Calderbank offer, the Court fixed the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings including the application at $40,500.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Proceedings for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Determined on the Papers After Consent Orders Appointing Trustees for Sale
Outcome
Gross sum costs order made in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $40,500.
Legal Topics
['specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'trustees for Sale of Co Owned Property' 'calderbank Offers']
['costs' 'equity' 'property Law'] ['specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'trustees for Sale of Co Owned Property' 'calderbank Offers']

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 Proceedings for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Determined on the Papers After Consent Orders Appointing Trustees for Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on a specified gross sum basis under s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)." "What amount should be fixed as the specified gross sum for the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including the costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

A specified gross sum costs order was appropriate because the defendant, through her solicitor, persistently failed to engage with the plaintiff's solicitors in resolving a relatively simple costs claim and gave no evidence explaining that conduct, creating a real concern that any assessment process would be inefficient and disproportionate. The plaintiff's evidence gave the Court a sufficient basis to make a rational assessment of costs. Applying discounts to the incurred and estimated costs, and taking account of the plaintiff's Calderbank offer, the Court fixed the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings including the application at $40,500.

Court Disposition

Gross sum costs order made in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $40,500.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including the present application, in the specified gross sum of $40,500 instead of assessed costs."]