His Eminence Metropolitan Petar, Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand & Anor v The Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated & Anor (No 2)

[2007] NSWCA 142

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Interlocutory proceedings
4. › Application for interlocutory injunction
5. › Whether costs should be 'costs in the cause' or 'plaintiff's costs in the cause'
6. › Rationale for usual order
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 42.7
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs of appeal from interlocutory application
4. › Whether costs of appeal should follow the event or be plaintiff's costs in the cause
5. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(e)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Successful appellant withdrawing ground of appeal
4. › Whether costs should be reduced on account of abandoned issue
5. › Whether issue sufficiently minor to warrant no separate order
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
4. › Application for Suitors' Fund Certificate
5. › Whether conduct of respondent disentitling
6. › Whether appellant's costs should be limited to maximum amount payable under certificate
7. › Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW), ss 6(1), 6(2A)

Quick Take

On an application for an interlocutory injunction, the usual costs order where the plaintiff succeeds is that costs be the plaintiff's costs in the cause, not simply costs in the cause. Different considerations apply to costs of an appeal from an interlocutory application — costs may follow the event where the respondent vigorously defended on a misplaced basis. An order for costs in respect of interlocutory proceedings under r 42.7 UCPR is not immediately enforceable without a specific displacing order, and this applies equally to costs of an appeal from an interlocutory application.