Edwards v Stocks

(2009) 17 Tas R 454; [2009] TASSC 11

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Departing from the general rule
4. › Conduct of parties
5. › Conduct tending to litigation
6. › Third party proceedings
7. › Real fight between plaintiffs and third parties
8. › Whether plaintiffs and not the defendant should pay costs of third parties
9. › Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), s 12(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Departing from the general rule
4. › Relevance of impecuniosity of a party
5. › Whether impecuniosity of unsuccessful plaintiff relevant to costs orders between other parties
6. › Sanderson and Bullock orders
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Third party proceedings
4. › Successful third party where plaintiff's action fails
5. › Whether general rule displaced by third party's tortious conduct giving rise to litigation

Quick Take

Where a third party's tortious conduct gave rise to the litigation and adverse findings have been made against the third party (even though the plaintiff's action ultimately failed on other grounds), the court may depart from the general rule that the defendant pay the successful third party's costs. The impecuniosity of a party is not invariably irrelevant to the costs discretion in multi-party litigation; there is no inflexible rule that every party's financial position is always irrelevant.