Westfield Management Limited & Ors v Direct Factory Outlets Homebush Pty Limited & Ors [No 4] [2005] NSWLEC 168

Westfield Management Limited & Ors v Direct Factory Outlets Homebush Pty Limited & Ors [No 4] [2005] NSWLEC 168

Applicants to pay Respondents’ costs of proceedings on party and party basis; indemnity costs not warranted as Applicants’ conduct, while unsuccessful, was not so unreasonable as to depart from ordinary costs rule; no improper purpose or deliberate abuse of process found and Calderbank letters did not amount to genuine compromise offers. Each party to pay own costs of later Notices of Motion and hearing; no order as to costs on Applicants’ s 50 application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Strike Out
Outcome
Applicants to pay Respondents' costs on party and party basis unless otherwise ordered; indemnity costs refused; each party to pay own costs for certain motions; no costs order as to s 50 motion.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'judicial Review' 'strike Out Applications' 'summary Dismissal']
['civil Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'judicial Review' 'strike Out Applications' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Respondents are entitled to indemnity costs for whole proceedings' 'Whether Applicants acted unreasonably, had no chance of success, or had improper purpose justifying indemnity costs' 'Effect of Calderbank letters on costs order' 'Whether Applicants’ delay disentitles Respondents to costs prior to 24 June 2004' 'Whether Applicants are entitled to costs of Notice of Motion under s 50 Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants to pay Respondents’ costs of proceedings on party and party basis; indemnity costs not warranted as Applicants’ conduct, while unsuccessful, was not so unreasonable as to depart from ordinary costs rule; no improper purpose or deliberate abuse of process found and Calderbank letters did not amount to genuine compromise offers. Each party to pay own costs of later Notices of Motion and hearing; no order as to costs on Applicants’ s 50 application.

Court Disposition

Applicants to pay Respondents' costs on party and party basis unless otherwise ordered; indemnity costs refused; each party to pay own costs for certain motions; no costs order as to s 50 motion.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants are to pay the Respondents' costs of the proceedings unless otherwise ordered." "The Applicants are to pay the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Respondents' costs of Notices of Motion for summary dismissal (dated 24 February 2003, 25 February 2003, 23 February 2003 and 25 February 2003...