Widjaja v Noto [2022] NSWSC 1446

Widjaja v Noto [2022] NSWSC 1446

No costs order should be made because costs in s 66G proceedings are usually borne from the sale proceeds rather than by applying costs follow the event, the sale proceeds had already been distributed, the first defendant was not obliged to assent to sale, and his dilatory conduct did not amount to unreasonable conduct sufficient to justify ordering him to pay the plaintiff's costs. For similar fairness reasons, there should also be no separate costs order on the costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 66 G(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) for Imposition of a Statutory Trust for Sale of Co Owned Land; Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of Costs After Consent Orders, Sale of the Property and Distribution of Proceeds
Outcome
Order made that there be no order as to the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['co Ownership' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'costs of S 66 G Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'unreasonable Conduct in Litigation']
['equity' 'costs' 'property Law'] ['co Ownership' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'costs of S 66 G Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'unreasonable Conduct in Litigation']

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

Application Under S 66 G(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) for Imposition of a Statutory Trust for Sale of Co Owned Land; Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of Costs After Consent Orders, Sale of the Property and Distribution of Proceeds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should receive her costs of the s 66G proceedings from the first defendant because the sale made her the successful party.' "Whether the first defendant's refusal to assent to the sale or pre-litigation conduct brought about the proceedings so as to justify a costs order against him." 'Whether the first defendant acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings so as to justify departure from the usual costs position.' 'Whether a separate costs order should be made for the costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order should be made because costs in s 66G proceedings are usually borne from the sale proceeds rather than by applying costs follow the event, the sale proceeds had already been distributed, the first defendant was not obliged to assent to sale, and his dilatory conduct did not amount to unreasonable conduct sufficient to justify ordering him to pay the plaintiff's costs. For similar fairness reasons, there should also be no separate costs order on the costs application.

Court Disposition

Order made that there be no order as to the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs in respect of both the s 66G(1) proceedings and the costs application brought by Ms Widjaja.']