Sader v Elgammal

[2025] NSWCA 111

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Costs
2. › Proceedings dismissed by consent
3. › Application for costs under UCPR r 42.20(1)
4. › Whether order 'otherwise' appropriate
5. › Distinction between capitulation and compromise
6. › Whether removal of plans from construction certificate amounted to capitulation
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.20
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Costs orders
4. › Restrained approach of intermediate appellate courts
5. › Whether issue of principle, matter of general importance, or clear injustice demonstrated
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 58(3)(c)
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Discretionary costs orders
4. › Whether House v The King error demonstrated
5. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

Where proceedings are dismissed by consent following mediation and the moving party has abandoned multiple heads of relief including its primary claim, the dismissal is more likely to be characterised as a compromise rather than a capitulation, making a costs order in favour of the moving party unlikely.

Case Details

Citation[2025] NSWCA 111

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on10

2024Mohareb v Local Court of New South WalesNSWCA 235
2022Sader v ElgammalNSWLEC 107
2021Nadilo v EagletonNSWCA 232
2014Ralph Lauren 57 Pty Limited v Byron Shire CouncilNSWCA 107
and 6 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in