Patten v Moffatt & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1322

Patten v Moffatt & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1322

The defendants succeeded on the cross-claim and were entitled to their costs of that cross-claim. The defendants' liability to pay the plaintiff's judgment and costs formed part of the antecedent enforceable obligation for which contribution could be ordered, so the ABC was required to pay 90 percent of that liability. However, s5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 did not provide power to recover the defendants' own costs of defending the plaintiff's claim, and it was not appropriate under the ordinary costs discretion to order the ABC to pay those costs given the defendants' partial responsibility for the harm, the usual position that liable defendants bear their own...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Application by Defendants Against Cross Defendant for Costs Following Defamation Proceedings and a Contribution Cross Claim / Judgment on Application for Costs After Jury Verdict
Outcome
Application allowed in part; the ABC was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the cross-claim and 90 percent of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff, but not the defendants' own costs of resisting the plaintiff's claim.
Legal Topics
['costs of Cross Claim' 'contribution Under S5 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946' 'defamation Act 1974 S13 Defence' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'refusal to Mediate']
['defamation' 'costs' 'contribution Among Tortfeasors' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs of Cross Claim' 'contribution Under S5 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946' 'defamation Act 1974 S13 Defence' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'refusal to Mediate']

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

Application by Defendants Against Cross Defendant for Costs Following Defamation Proceedings and a Contribution Cross Claim / Judgment on Application for Costs After Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were entitled to costs of the cross-claim against the ABC.' "Whether the ABC should pay 90 percent of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff for the judgment and costs." "Whether the ABC should pay the defendants' own costs of resisting the plaintiff's claim." "Whether the defendants' conduct, including refusal to mediate and alleged prolongation of the litigation, affected the discretion to award costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants succeeded on the cross-claim and were entitled to their costs of that cross-claim. The defendants' liability to pay the plaintiff's judgment and costs formed part of the antecedent enforceable obligation for which contribution could be ordered, so the ABC was required to pay 90 percent of that liability. However, s5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 did not provide power to recover the defendants' own costs of defending the plaintiff's claim, and it was not appropriate under the ordinary costs discretion to order the ABC to pay those costs given the defendants' partial responsibility for the harm, the usual position that liable defendants bear their own...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; the ABC was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the cross-claim and 90 percent of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff, but not the defendants' own costs of resisting the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

  • ["The cross defendant (the ABC) should pay the defendants' costs of the cross claim." "The cross defendant should pay 90 percent of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff in respect of the judgment of $28,875, and costs."]