Wollongong Coal Ltd v Gujarat NRE Properties Pty Ltd (Costs) [2020] NSWSC 483

Wollongong Coal Ltd v Gujarat NRE Properties Pty Ltd (Costs) [2020] NSWSC 483

The abandoned and unsuccessful matters did not justify a general reduction of the plaintiff's costs because the Third Component and share sale were closely connected with the successful improper purpose case and loss issues, the payments to subsidiaries issue took very little time, and the ESA issue was interwoven with the defendants' defence and occupied no hearing time. However, because the plaintiff had specifically impugned the ESA and the defendants obtained an expert report and addressed that topic in part of written submissions, it was appropriate to allow an offset for the expert report, costs of obtaining it, and nine per cent of counsel's fees for the written submissions of 29...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Judgment Entered for the Plaintiff Against the Second and Third Defendants
Outcome
The Court declined to order that the second and third defendants pay only 80 per cent of the plaintiff's costs, but allowed a limited offset and ordered that the plaintiff recover 75 per cent of the costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'separable Issues' 'ordinary Basis Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'separable Issues' 'ordinary Basis Costs']

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 / On the Papers After Judgment Entered for the Plaintiff Against the Second and Third Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second and third defendants should be required to pay only 80 per cent of the plaintiff's costs because the plaintiff abandoned or failed on some claims." 'Whether abandoned or unsuccessful issues concerning the ESA, payments to subsidiaries, and the Third Component were sufficiently dominant or separable to justify departure from the usual costs order.' "Whether the second and third defendants should be allowed to offset costs of an expert report and related counsel's fees concerning the ESA."]

Ratio Decidendi

The abandoned and unsuccessful matters did not justify a general reduction of the plaintiff's costs because the Third Component and share sale were closely connected with the successful improper purpose case and loss issues, the payments to subsidiaries issue took very little time, and the ESA issue was interwoven with the defendants' defence and occupied no hearing time. However, because the plaintiff had specifically impugned the ESA and the defendants obtained an expert report and addressed that topic in part of written submissions, it was appropriate to allow an offset for the expert report, costs of obtaining it, and nine per cent of counsel's fees for the written submissions of 29...

Court Disposition

The Court declined to order that the second and third defendants pay only 80 per cent of the plaintiff's costs, but allowed a limited offset and ordered that the plaintiff recover 75 per cent of the costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed, subject to an offset of an amount, as agreed or assessed, representing the cost of the expert report obtained by the second and third defendants in respect of the ESA, the costs of obtaining that report,...