Grygiel v Baine & Ors [No. 2] [2005] NSWCA 434

Grygiel v Baine & Ors [No. 2] [2005] NSWCA 434

The motion to vary the costs orders was dismissed because the sought changes were not corrections under the slip rule but an attempt to reopen the Court's considered judgment, the relevant costs points had not been raised in a timely way, there was no demonstrated basis for adding Ms Wiley or Carroll & O'Dea to the costs liability, and the prior orders were already intended to substitute for the Master's costs order. Mr Baine and Carroll & O'Dea were granted Suitors' Fund certificates because the relevant proceedings were appeals or proceedings in the nature of an appeal within the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion to Vary Costs Orders and Motions for Suitors' Fund Certificates / New South Wales Court of Appeal After Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Mr Grygiel's motion to vary the costs orders was dismissed with costs; Suitors' Fund certificates were granted to Mr Baine and Carroll & O'Dea.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Orders' 'slip Rule' 'reopening Judgment' 'failure to Address Costs at Hearing' "suitors' Fund Certificates" 'appeal From Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'consumer and Tenancy Tribunal Proceedings' 'home Building' "suitors' Fund"] ['variation of Costs Orders' 'slip Rule' 'reopening Judgment' 'failure to Address Costs at Hearing' "suitors' Fund Certificates" 'appeal From Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal']

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 Costs Orders and Motions for Suitors' Fund Certificates / New South Wales Court of Appeal After Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should vary or correct its costs orders made on 29 June 2005 under the slip rule or by reopening the judgment.' "Whether the Court's failure to invite submissions on costs justified further costs submissions or different costs orders." "Whether costs orders should be made against Ms Wiley and Carroll & O'Dea in addition to Mr Baine." "Whether Mr Baine and Carroll & O'Dea were entitled to certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to vary the costs orders was dismissed because the sought changes were not corrections under the slip rule but an attempt to reopen the Court's considered judgment, the relevant costs points had not been raised in a timely way, there was no demonstrated basis for adding Ms Wiley or Carroll & O'Dea to the costs liability, and the prior orders were already intended to substitute for the Master's costs order. Mr Baine and Carroll & O'Dea were granted Suitors' Fund certificates because the relevant proceedings were appeals or proceedings in the nature of an appeal within the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Mr Grygiel's motion to vary the costs orders was dismissed with costs; Suitors' Fund certificates were granted to Mr Baine and Carroll & O'Dea.

Orders

  • ['Motion by Mr Grygiel to vary the orders made by the Court on 29 June 2005 with respect to costs be dismissed with costs.' "Grant certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act to Mr Baine and to Carroll & O'Dea in relation to the proceedings in the Common Law Division no. 30088 of 2003." "Grant certificates under the...