Bookarelli Pty Ltd v Katanga Developments Pty Ltd

[2017] NSWCA 69

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Costs
2. › Assessment of costs
3. › Costs payable under consent order
4. › Multiple defendants
5. › Whether 'rule of thumb' for apportioning costs among multiple defendants is a binding rule of law
6. › Whether consent costs order implicitly incorporated rule of thumb
7. › Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 367A
1. Costs
2. › Assessment of costs
3. › Construction of consent costs order
4. › Whether order in usual form covers all costs of proceedings including interlocutory applications
5. › Whether vacating order displaced interim costs order
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Review of District Court decision on appeal from Costs Review Panel
5. › Whether errors of law constituted jurisdictional error
6. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Unmeritorious applications for judicial review
5. › Whether indemnity costs appropriate where applicant has had benefit of multiple levels of review

Quick Take

The 'rule of thumb' for apportioning costs among multiple defendants (where the plaintiff succeeds against some but not others) is no more than a guide, not a binding rule of law, and its application depends on the circumstances of each case. It has its origins in Chancery practice where the same solicitor acted for all defendants and may not apply where defendants are separately represented. A consent costs order in usual form requiring one party to pay another's costs of the proceedings covers all costs including interlocutory applications in which the costs-receiving party was successful. Unmeritorious applications for judicial review of costs determinations, particularly after multiple levels of review, may attract indemnity costs.