Sydney Harbour Casino Properties Pty Ltd v Coluzzi & Anor (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 113

Sydney Harbour Casino Properties Pty Ltd v Coluzzi & Anor (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 113

Order 5 contained a slip and should be corrected by substituting "Second respondent" for "Respondent". The order should not be varied to require the second respondent to pay all of the appellant's appeal costs because the appeal had two parts: the appellant unsuccessfully sought to overturn the first respondent's verdict and successfully challenged the second respondent's favourable verdict on the cross-claim, making a one-half apportionment appropriate. No addition to order 3 for trial costs was warranted because, at most, the proper addition would concern costs of the cross-claim, and there was no point making that order because of the indemnity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Motion to Vary Orders on Appeal / Court of Appeal Motion to Amend and Add to Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 20 March 2002, Heard on Papers
Outcome
Order 5 varied only to correct "Respondent" to "Second respondent"; appellant's motion otherwise dismissed; appellant to pay the second respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['variation of Orders' 'correction of Slip in Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'costs of Trial' 'cross Claim Indemnity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Practice'] ['variation of Orders' 'correction of Slip in Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'costs of Trial' 'cross Claim Indemnity']

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

Motion to Vary Orders on Appeal / Court of Appeal Motion to Amend and Add to Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 20 March 2002, Heard on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether order 5 made on 20 March 2002 should be amended by substituting "Second respondent" for "Respondent".' "Whether the second respondent should pay the whole of the appellant's costs of the appeal rather than one half." "Whether order 3 should be expanded to require the second respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

Order 5 contained a slip and should be corrected by substituting "Second respondent" for "Respondent". The order should not be varied to require the second respondent to pay all of the appellant's appeal costs because the appeal had two parts: the appellant unsuccessfully sought to overturn the first respondent's verdict and successfully challenged the second respondent's favourable verdict on the cross-claim, making a one-half apportionment appropriate. No addition to order 3 for trial costs was warranted because, at most, the proper addition would concern costs of the cross-claim, and there was no point making that order because of the indemnity.

Court Disposition

Order 5 varied only to correct "Respondent" to "Second respondent"; appellant's motion otherwise dismissed; appellant to pay the second respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Amend order 5 made on 20 March 2002 by deleting "Respondent" and substituting "Second respondent".' "Appellant's motion otherwise dismissed." "Appellant to pay Second Respondent's costs of the application."]