AMC Caterers Pty Ltd v Stavropoulos
Case
•
[2005] NSWCA 79
•15 March 2005
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AMC Caterers Pty Ltd v Stavropoulos [2005] NSWCA 79
[2005] NSWCA 79
15 March 2005
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AMC Caterers Pty Ltd (the claimants) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against an order of Truss DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the award of costs in an action brought by the claimants against the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the smallness of the judgment sum awarded to the claimants, particularly in circumstances where it did not represent money to be received by them, constituted "special circumstances" justifying a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
The Court of Appeal held that the smallness of the judgment sum, in the context of the overall litigation and the fact that the award was not a net gain for the claimants, did indeed constitute special circumstances. The court applied the principle established in *Berrico Estate Pty Ltd v Andersen* [2003] NSWCA 23, which affirmed that a small judgment sum can be a relevant factor in determining whether to depart from the usual costs order.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal, and set aside the District Court's order that the claimants pay the opponent's costs. Instead, the Court of Appeal ordered that the opponent pay the claimants' costs of the action, as well as the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself. The opponent was also to have a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951* (NSW) if otherwise entitled.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the smallness of the judgment sum awarded to the claimants, particularly in circumstances where it did not represent money to be received by them, constituted "special circumstances" justifying a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
The Court of Appeal held that the smallness of the judgment sum, in the context of the overall litigation and the fact that the award was not a net gain for the claimants, did indeed constitute special circumstances. The court applied the principle established in *Berrico Estate Pty Ltd v Andersen* [2003] NSWCA 23, which affirmed that a small judgment sum can be a relevant factor in determining whether to depart from the usual costs order.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal, and set aside the District Court's order that the claimants pay the opponent's costs. Instead, the Court of Appeal ordered that the opponent pay the claimants' costs of the action, as well as the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself. The opponent was also to have a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951* (NSW) if otherwise entitled.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
-
Breach
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
John William Suthern v Unilever Australia Ltd [2008] ACTSC 75
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Suresh v Jacon Industries Pty Ltd (No. 2)
[2005] NSWCA 270
Sarina v O'Shannassy (No 6)
[2020] FCCA 3422
Judd v Warwick (Costs)
[2007] NSWDC 300