Herbert v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 91

Herbert v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 91

The plaintiff raised no valid reason why costs should not follow the event. The pending appeal did not justify deferring costs, the alleged failure by the first defendant was unsupported by evidence and did not amount to disentitling conduct, and the apprehended bias allegation lacked substance. As the first defendant was the successful party, the plaintiff was ordered to pay its costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Hearing After Dismissal of Appeal With Costs Reserved
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'effect of Appeal on Costs Order' 'disentitling Conduct' 'apprehended Bias' 'pro Bono Party Fees']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'effect of Appeal on Costs Order' 'disentitling Conduct' 'apprehended Bias' 'pro Bono Party Fees']

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 / Costs Hearing After Dismissal of Appeal With Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was any reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.' "Whether the plaintiff's appeal against the principal decision justified deferring the making of a costs order." "Whether the first defendant's alleged conduct disentitled it from obtaining a costs order." 'Whether an allegation of apprehended bias provided a reason not to order costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff raised no valid reason why costs should not follow the event. The pending appeal did not justify deferring costs, the alleged failure by the first defendant was unsupported by evidence and did not amount to disentitling conduct, and the apprehended bias allegation lacked substance. As the first defendant was the successful party, the plaintiff was ordered to pay its costs.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings."]