Chen & Ors v Chan & Ors

[2009] VSCA 233

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeal costs
4. › Mixed success on appeal
5. › Apportionment of costs
6. › Applicable principles
7. › Whether costs should follow the event where not all issues won
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs and solicitor/client costs
4. › Whether respondents ought to have known appeal would inevitably succeed
5. › Whether rejection of Calderbank offer was unreasonable
6. › Whether late abandonment of grounds warrants indemnity costs
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Joint representation
4. › Apportionment where some jointly represented parties succeed and others do not
5. › Rule of thumb
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Mareva injunction
3. › Undertaking as to damages
4. › Claim for damages caused by grant of injunction
5. › Whether claim can be entertained by Court of Appeal in first instance

Quick Take

The case provides a convenient summary of seven principles governing costs apportionment on appeal where there is mixed success, including the 'rule of thumb' for jointly represented parties. It confirms that solicitor/client costs may be awarded where a respondent persists in defending findings on appeal when the factual substratum is manifestly hopeless. A claim for damages on an undertaking as to damages given in support of a Mareva injunction cannot be litigated in the first instance in the Court of Appeal and must be pursued in the Trial Division.