GERASIMOS GEORGITSIS and ORS v LEND LEASE INTERIORS LTD [1994] NSWCA 106

GERASIMOS GEORGITSIS and ORS v LEND LEASE INTERIORS LTD [1994] NSWCA 106

The trial judge failed to consider material factors—namely, the necessity for each appellant to have legal representation to protect his interests at the cross-claims hearing—when making a single costs order. This omission constituted an error in the exercise of discretion, warranting appellate intervention and making it appropriate for each appellant, other than Conevski (who had settled), to be awarded his individual costs for the hearing.

Parties
Appellant: URJ Georgitsis; Appellant: Correia; Appellant: Da Silva; Appellant: Libera; Appellant: Toneguzzo; Appellant: Melfi; Appellant: Guerra; Appellant: Ferras; Appellant: Dimanno; Appellant: Conevski; Respondent: Lend Lease Interiors Ltd; Third Party: DeMartin & Gasparini Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of all appellants except Conevski; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Representation of Multiple Parties, Cross Claims, Workers' Compensation
Civil Procedure Costs Industrial Law Costs Orders Representation of Multiple Parties Cross Claims Workers' Compensation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

URJ Georgitsis

Appellant

Correia

Appellant

Da Silva

Appellant

Libera

Appellant

Toneguzzo

Appellant

Melfi

Appellant

Guerra

Appellant

Ferras

Appellant

Dimanno

Appellant

Conevski

Appellant

Lend Lease Interiors Ltd

Respondent

DeMartin & Gasparini Pty Ltd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ordering each appellant should receive only one-tenth of his costs for the hearing of the cross-claims.
  2. 2 Whether the necessity and right of separate legal representation for each appellant was properly considered in the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to consider material factors—namely, the necessity for each appellant to have legal representation to protect his interests at the cross-claims hearing—when making a single costs order. This omission constituted an error in the exercise of discretion, warranting appellate intervention and making it appropriate for each appellant, other than Conevski (who had settled), to be awarded his individual costs for the hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of all appellants except Conevski; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the order that the respondent pay one-tenth of the costs to each appellant; instead, order respondent to pay each of the appellants (other than Conevski) his costs of the hearing.
  • No order as to costs of the appeals.