Shankar v The Uniting Church in Australia; Shankar v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1323

Shankar v The Uniting Church in Australia; Shankar v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1323

The conduct of Vision Valley did not make it fair to impose liability for Domino's costs; nothing the unsuccessful defendant has said or done has led the plaintiff to sue Domino's. The test for a Bullock or Sanderson order, as stated by Gibbs CJ, has not been met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Trial Determination of Costs
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs
Legal Topics
['bullock Orders' 'sanderson Orders']
['costs'] ['bullock Orders' 'sanderson Orders']

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

Costs Application / Post Trial Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order is appropriate in circumstances where plaintiff was unsuccessful against one defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of Vision Valley did not make it fair to impose liability for Domino's costs; nothing the unsuccessful defendant has said or done has led the plaintiff to sue Domino's. The test for a Bullock or Sanderson order, as stated by Gibbs CJ, has not been met.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff to pay Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited's costs of defending the plaintiff's claim."]