YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951

YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951

The defendants had plainly enjoyed a measure of success in YZ v Amazon (No 3), and the plaintiff's explanations for delays and pleading reformulations did not justify depriving them of compensation for costs incurred, although some objections reflected a punctiliously high standard and warranted reducing that costs order to three-quarters. In relation to YZ v Amazon (No 4), the considerations relevant to granting indulgence did not warrant depriving the defendants of costs, so the plaintiff was ordered to pay their costs on the ordinary basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs / Reserved Question as to the Costs of Arguments Determined in YZ V Amazon (no 3) and YZ V Amazon (no 4); Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay three-quarters of the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants' costs of YZ v Amazon (No 3), and to pay those defendants' costs of YZ v Amazon (No 4).
Legal Topics
['ordinary Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'self Represented Plaintiff' 'pleadings and Proposed Amended Pleadings' 'imputations' 'stay of Orders and Further Time' 'overriding Purpose']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['ordinary Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'self Represented Plaintiff' 'pleadings and Proposed Amended Pleadings' 'imputations' 'stay of Orders and Further Time' 'overriding Purpose']

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 / Reserved Question as to the Costs of Arguments Determined in YZ V Amazon (no 3) and YZ V Amazon (no 4); Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants' costs of the argument determined in YZ v Amazon (No 3)." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants' costs of the argument determined in YZ v Amazon (No 4)." "Whether the defendants' objections and the circumstances of the plaintiff's pleading delays and reformulations warranted reducing or denying costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants had plainly enjoyed a measure of success in YZ v Amazon (No 3), and the plaintiff's explanations for delays and pleading reformulations did not justify depriving them of compensation for costs incurred, although some objections reflected a punctiliously high standard and warranted reducing that costs order to three-quarters. In relation to YZ v Amazon (No 4), the considerations relevant to granting indulgence did not warrant depriving the defendants of costs, so the plaintiff was ordered to pay their costs on the ordinary basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay three-quarters of the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants' costs of YZ v Amazon (No 3), and to pay those defendants' costs of YZ v Amazon (No 4).

Orders

  • ['In respect of the matters determined in YZ v Amazon (No 3), the plaintiff pay three-quarters of the costs of the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants.' "In respect of the argument determined in YZ v Amazon (No 4), the plaintiff pay the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants' costs."]