Majak v Rose (No 7) [2017] NSWCA 276

Majak v Rose (No 7) [2017] NSWCA 276

Given the applicant's self-representation, timely conduct, and lack of pressing need to award costs, the appropriate order is that the respondent's costs of the motion be costs in the cause, rather than making an immediate award of costs.

Parties
Applicant: Zofia Majak; Respondent: Alan Rose
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (costs) / Interlocutory
Outcome
Respondent's costs of the motion be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Costs, Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Practice and Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zofia Majak

Applicant

Alan Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (costs) / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made in relation to the applicant's unsuccessful notice of motion to vacate the hearing date.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant's self-representation, timely conduct, and lack of pressing need to award costs, the appropriate order is that the respondent's costs of the motion be costs in the cause, rather than making an immediate award of costs.

Court Disposition

Respondent's costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Costs of the motion be the respondent's costs in the cause.