Templar v Britton (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 802

Templar v Britton (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 802

Although the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the claim with due despatch amounted to unreasonable conduct which could justify an order for costs to be payable forthwith, the plaintiff's limited financial means and the risk that such an order would stymie prosecution of a viable claim outweighed those factors. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to order the costs to be payable forthwith.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Templar; Second Plaintiff: Audametrics Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Paul Britton; Second Defendant: Bradley Laughlan; Third Defendant: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Costs Application After Several Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay the costs of the three applications and argument of the present day, but costs not ordered to be payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Costs Payable Forthwith, Undue Delay, Pleadings, Access to Justice
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Costs Orders Costs Payable Forthwith Undue Delay Pleadings Access to Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Templar

Plaintiff

Audametrics Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Paul Britton

First Defendant

Bradley Laughlan

Second Defendant

State of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Costs Application After Several Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interlocutory applications should be payable forthwith by the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's conduct amounts to unreasonable conduct justifying such an order

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the claim with due despatch amounted to unreasonable conduct which could justify an order for costs to be payable forthwith, the plaintiff's limited financial means and the risk that such an order would stymie prosecution of a viable claim outweighed those factors. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to order the costs to be payable forthwith.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay the costs of the three applications and argument of the present day, but costs not ordered to be payable forthwith.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of the three applications identified in the judgment together with the costs of the argument today.
  • Application to have those costs orders payable forthwith is refused.