Carr v Douglass (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1367

Carr v Douglass (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1367

The plaintiff's application to vary the costs order to indemnity costs was made outside the 14-day period after judgment entered as mandated by UCPR r 36.16(3A). No relevant notice was given within the period, and the liberty to apply provision in the principal orders did not extend jurisdiction to vary or revisit the costs order for indemnity costs. As such, the application for indemnity costs must be dismissed; the status quo ordinary basis order remains.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Provision/costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Application After Principal Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion for indemnity costs dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the third defendant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['costs—indemnity and Ordinary Basis' 'family Provision Applications' 'offers of Compromise' 'jurisdiction to Vary Orders' 'finality of Judgments']
['equity' 'succession Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs—indemnity and Ordinary Basis' 'family Provision Applications' 'offers of Compromise' 'jurisdiction to Vary Orders' 'finality of Judgments']

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

Family Provision/costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Application After Principal Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has jurisdiction to make a special (indemnity) costs order more than 14 days after entry of judgment under UCPR r 36.16(3A)' 'Whether liberty to apply can extend time for such an application' 'Whether, if jurisdiction exists, a proportional or indemnity costs order should be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application to vary the costs order to indemnity costs was made outside the 14-day period after judgment entered as mandated by UCPR r 36.16(3A). No relevant notice was given within the period, and the liberty to apply provision in the principal orders did not extend jurisdiction to vary or revisit the costs order for indemnity costs. As such, the application for indemnity costs must be dismissed; the status quo ordinary basis order remains.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion for indemnity costs dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the third defendant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's motion dated 19 September 2016 dismissed." "Third defendant's motion dated 19 September 2016 dismissed." "Plaintiff to pay the third defendant's costs of the dismissal of the motions on the ordinary basis." 'Grant liberty to apply until 28 October 2016 in respect to any remaining issues as to the...