Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2016] NSWSC 1398
•04 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1398
[2016] NSWSC 1398
04 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Ltd, the defendant, Savills (NSW) Pty Ltd, sought an order that the plaintiff, Bassal, pay costs on an indemnity basis immediately, due to considerable delays in the proceedings, which were largely attributable to the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that the delays had caused significant inconvenience and additional costs, justifying an immediate payment of indemnity costs.
The legal issues before the court involved whether the defendant's application for an immediate payment of indemnity costs was justified, and if so, to what extent. The court had to consider the extent of the delays, the fault of the plaintiff in causing those delays, and the impact of those delays on the defendant. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether ordering an immediate payment of costs was appropriate, or if the matter should be dealt with at the conclusion of the proceedings.
The court found that the plaintiff was indeed responsible for considerable delays in the proceedings and that the defendant had incurred additional costs as a result. However, the court held that ordering an immediate payment of costs on an indemnity basis was not appropriate. Instead, the court directed that some of the costs should be paid on an indemnity basis, but this should be determined at the conclusion of the proceedings. This approach aimed to balance the need for the defendant to recover costs with the need to ensure that the proceedings could continue without undue financial pressure on the plaintiff.
The legal issues before the court involved whether the defendant's application for an immediate payment of indemnity costs was justified, and if so, to what extent. The court had to consider the extent of the delays, the fault of the plaintiff in causing those delays, and the impact of those delays on the defendant. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether ordering an immediate payment of costs was appropriate, or if the matter should be dealt with at the conclusion of the proceedings.
The court found that the plaintiff was indeed responsible for considerable delays in the proceedings and that the defendant had incurred additional costs as a result. However, the court held that ordering an immediate payment of costs on an indemnity basis was not appropriate. Instead, the court directed that some of the costs should be paid on an indemnity basis, but this should be determined at the conclusion of the proceedings. This approach aimed to balance the need for the defendant to recover costs with the need to ensure that the proceedings could continue without undue financial pressure on the plaintiff.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Cabport Pty Ltd v Marinchek (No 2)
[2013] NSWCA 131
Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2016] NSWCA 31
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801