Al Haje v Elassaad [2024] NSWSC 13

Al Haje v Elassaad [2024] NSWSC 13

The defendant knowingly breached his undertaking and Court orders concerning the net sale proceeds of the Roberts Road property, causing separate and wasteful interlocutory proceedings that did not advance the substantive claim. Because those proceedings were generated solely by the defendant's unreasonable disregard of the Court's orders and his undertaking, the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs payable forthwith. A specified gross sum was refused because the Court lacked sufficient detail to assess all relevant interlocutory costs globally, particularly solicitor work spanning periods not covered by the present costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Interlocutory Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Proceedings Arising From Breach of Asset Preservation Orders and Undertaking
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of specified interlocutory proceedings on the indemnity basis, payable forthwith; application for specified gross sum costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'undertakings to the Court']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'specified Gross Sum Costs Order' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'undertakings to the Court']

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 in Interlocutory Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Proceedings Arising From Breach of Asset Preservation Orders and Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should receive costs of interlocutory proceedings caused by the defendant's breach of undertaking and Court orders." 'Whether those costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis.' 'Whether those costs should be payable forthwith rather than at the conclusion of the proceedings.' 'Whether the Court should assess the costs in a specified gross sum.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knowingly breached his undertaking and Court orders concerning the net sale proceeds of the Roberts Road property, causing separate and wasteful interlocutory proceedings that did not advance the substantive claim. Because those proceedings were generated solely by the defendant's unreasonable disregard of the Court's orders and his undertaking, the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs payable forthwith. A specified gross sum was refused because the Court lacked sufficient detail to assess all relevant interlocutory costs globally, particularly solicitor work spanning periods not covered by the present costs orders.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of specified interlocutory proceedings on the indemnity basis, payable forthwith; application for specified gross sum costs order refused.

Orders

  • ["Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application heard by Weinstein J on 6 March 2023." "Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 1 September 2023 including the costs of appearances before Campbell J on...