Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2)

[2009] NSWCA 304

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. › Sanderson order
4. › Conduct of unsuccessful defendant
5. › Whether provision of information and inquiry about proceedings against successful defendant constituted sufficient inducement
6. › Whether denial of liability alone sufficient
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Sanderson order
4. › Costs of appeal
5. › Whether unsuccessful respondent responsible for joinder of other respondent
6. › Both respondents necessarily joined to appeal
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Apportionment of costs
4. › Multiple issues on appeal
5. › Successful party unsuccessful on severable issue
6. › Whether costs order should reflect partial success

Quick Take

An unsuccessful defendant's conduct in providing information about a successful defendant's role and inquiring whether the plaintiff contemplates proceedings against that defendant does not, without more, constitute sufficient inducement to warrant a Sanderson order. The additional factor of directing blame towards the successful defendant (as in Gould v Vaggelas) is needed. Where a plaintiff succeeds on a severable issue on appeal (such as a limitation defence), the costs order should be reduced to reflect that partial success.