Hatzigeorgiou v Baker [1999] NSWSC 171

Hatzigeorgiou v Baker [1999] NSWSC 171

Because judgment had not been entered, the Court could reconsider the costs order. Although the defendant's offer of compromise did not assist because it was for less than the amount awarded, the plaintiffs failed on issues that occupied much of the eight-day hearing. It was therefore just to limit the defendant's liability for the plaintiffs' costs of the hearing between 15 February 1999 and 24 February 1999 to sixty percent on a party and party basis, while leaving pre-hearing costs payable in full on that basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs / Application by the Defendant to Revisit and Vary a Costs Order After Damages Were Assessed But Before Judgment Was Entered
Outcome
Costs order varied.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'party and Party Costs' 'variation of Costs Order Before Entry of Judgment' 'unsuccessful Issues at Hearing' 'offer of Compromise']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Orders' 'party and Party Costs' 'variation of Costs Order Before Entry of Judgment' 'unsuccessful Issues at Hearing' 'offer of Compromise']

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 by the Defendant to Revisit and Vary a Costs Order After Damages Were Assessed But Before Judgment Was Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should revisit and vary the costs order made on 3 March 1999 before judgment had been entered.' "Whether the defendant's liability for the plaintiffs' hearing costs should be restricted because the plaintiffs failed on issues that occupied much of the hearing." "Whether the defendant's prior offer of compromise justified a different costs outcome."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because judgment had not been entered, the Court could reconsider the costs order. Although the defendant's offer of compromise did not assist because it was for less than the amount awarded, the plaintiffs failed on issues that occupied much of the eight-day hearing. It was therefore just to limit the defendant's liability for the plaintiffs' costs of the hearing between 15 February 1999 and 24 February 1999 to sixty percent on a party and party basis, while leaving pre-hearing costs payable in full on that basis.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied.

Orders

  • ['The order in paragraph 3 of the formal orders expressed on 3 March 1999 was varied.' "Save for such costs, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the cause on a party and party basis, but for costs incurred for the hearing between 15 February 1999 and 24 February 1999 inclusive, the defendant must pay...