The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 39

The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 39

The fifth respondent's costs motion was unwarranted because it sought after judgment to reopen a matter in which it had taken no part in order to obtain a costs order it had not sought at the appropriate time. The applicant's subsequent application for costs of that motion was also unwarranted, particularly given the Court's directions were intended to avoid the applicant incurring costs unless a real issue arose. Both applications were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings; Costs Motion / Post Judgment Notice of Motion by the Fifth Respondent for Costs, Followed by the Applicant's Application for Costs of the Motion
Outcome
The fifth respondent's motion dated 19 December 2014 was dismissed, and the applicant's application for costs of the motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Judicial Review Proceedings' 'submitting Appearance' 'reopening Proceedings for Costs' "legal Representatives' Duties Under S 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Judicial Review Proceedings' 'submitting Appearance' 'reopening Proceedings for Costs' "legal Representatives' Duties Under S 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)"]

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

Judicial Review Proceedings; Costs Motion / Post Judgment Notice of Motion by the Fifth Respondent for Costs, Followed by the Applicant's Application for Costs of the Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fifth respondent, having filed a submitting appearance and taken no part in the review hearing, should be permitted after judgment to seek an order that the applicant pay its costs.' "Whether the applicant should obtain an order that the fifth respondent pay its costs of the fifth respondent's motion." 'Whether legal representatives should be mindful of their obligations under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) when applying to the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fifth respondent's costs motion was unwarranted because it sought after judgment to reopen a matter in which it had taken no part in order to obtain a costs order it had not sought at the appropriate time. The applicant's subsequent application for costs of that motion was also unwarranted, particularly given the Court's directions were intended to avoid the applicant incurring costs unless a real issue arose. Both applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

The fifth respondent's motion dated 19 December 2014 was dismissed, and the applicant's application for costs of the motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the fifth respondent's motion dated 19 December 2014." "Dismiss the applicant's application for costs of the motion."]