Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1010

Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1010

The Court adopted Brereton J's approach in Grace v Grace (No 9) as the correct approach on the current state of authority. Because interest on costs is compensatory and because there were no sufficient countervailing factors, the successful defendant was entitled to interest on costs. The plaintiffs' reliance on Illawarra Hotel did not prevent the order, particularly where its relevant observations were obiter and the proceedings appeared to have been protracted by the plaintiffs rather than the defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for Interest on Costs and Disbursements / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 23 May 2016, Heard After Principal Judgment and Costs Orders
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion granted; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the application and hearing.
Legal Topics
['interest on Costs' 'discretionary Considerations' 'evidence Required for Interest on Costs' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 101']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['interest on Costs' 'discretionary Considerations' 'evidence Required for Interest on Costs' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 101']

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 for Interest on Costs and Disbursements / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 23 May 2016, Heard After Principal Judgment and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful defendant should receive interest on costs and disbursements paid.' 'Whether evidence explaining why the proceedings were protracted is required before ordering interest on costs.' 'Whether countervailing discretionary factors justified refusing interest on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court adopted Brereton J's approach in Grace v Grace (No 9) as the correct approach on the current state of authority. Because interest on costs is compensatory and because there were no sufficient countervailing factors, the successful defendant was entitled to interest on costs. The plaintiffs' reliance on Illawarra Hotel did not prevent the order, particularly where its relevant observations were obiter and the proceedings appeared to have been protracted by the plaintiffs rather than the defendant.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion granted; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the application and hearing.

Orders

  • ['In addition to the order made on 9 May 2016, the plaintiffs are to pay to the defendant interest on costs and disbursements at the rate set out in Schedule 5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules on the allowed percentage of each amount of costs and disbursements actually paid by the defendant from the date of payment by...