Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWCA 213


Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 213
Hearing Date(s): On the papers
Decision Date: 12 July 2013
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [18];
Sackville AJA at [19]
Decision:

(1) Confirm orders (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the District Court made on 11 March 2011 in relation to the costs of those proceedings as between the first, second and third appellants and the respondent.

(2) Order that the respondent pay 10 per cent of the costs of the appeal of the first and third appellants.

(3) No order as to the costs of the appeal as between the second appellant and the respondent with the intent that each of those parties is to bear his own costs of the appeal.

(4) Note that the costs in orders (2) and (3) do not include any costs which are the subject of existing orders with respect to interlocutory applications in the appeals.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: COSTS - respondent succeeded against the three appellants at trial - appellants succeeded in having damages reduced on appeal - orders as to costs of trial and of appeal - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 42.1, 42.35
Cases Cited: Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264
Cambridge v Anastasopoulos [2012] NSWCA 405
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533
Category: Costs
Parties: Stephen Paul Cambridge (First Appellant)
James Liascos (Second Appellant)
Gregory John Hodges (Third Appellant)
Peter Anastasopoulos (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
Dr A S Morrison SC, Ms P M Clingan (First Appellant)
Mr J R Young (Second Appellant)
Mr J Jobson (Third Appellant)
Mr A Joseph (Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Macquarie Lawyers Burwood, Concord
(First and Third Appellants)
G&S Law Group, Parramatta
(Second Appellant)
George Gourlas Lawyer, Cronulla (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2009/337501
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal: District Court
- Before: Balla DCJ
- Court File Number(s): 2009/4475

JUDGMENT

  1. MEAGHER JA: The Court delivered judgment in this appeal on 11 December 2012: Cambridge v Anastasopoulos [2012] NSWCA 405. It directed the parties to lodge written submissions concerning the orders that should be made as to the costs of the proceedings before the primary judge and before this Court. Those submissions have now been received.

Background

  1. The respondent succeeded against the three appellants at the trial and obtained judgments against the first and second appellants for $55,048 plus pre-judgment interest, under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, from 10 February…

Continue reading Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cambridge v Anastasopoulos (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 213
Case
[2013] NSWCA 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The respondent had succeeded against the three appellants at trial. The appellants appealed the trial decision, and on appeal, the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent was reduced. The appeal court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the costs of both the trial and the appeal, given the mixed success of the parties.

The court considered the principles governing the award of costs in circumstances where an appeal partially succeeds. The court noted that the respondent had been successful at trial, but the appellants had achieved a reduction in the damages awarded on appeal. This mixed outcome necessitated a careful consideration of how the costs of both the trial and the appeal should be allocated. The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event, but also took into account the degree of success achieved by each party.

The court ordered that the existing costs orders made by the District Court in relation to the trial proceedings between the appellants and the respondent be confirmed. For the appeal, the court ordered that the respondent pay 10 per cent of the costs of the appeal incurred by the first and third appellants. No order was made as to the costs of the appeal between the second appellant and the respondent, meaning each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal. These orders were specifically noted as not affecting any existing costs orders relating to interlocutory applications made during the appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Confirm orders (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the District Court made on 11 March 2011 in relation to the costs of those proceedings as between the first, second and third appellants and the respondent.

(2) Order that the respondent pay 10 per cent of the costs of the appeal of the first and third appellants.

(3) No order as to the costs of the appeal as between the second appellant and the respondent with the intent that each of those parties is to bear his own costs of the appeal.

(4) Note that the costs in orders (2) and (3) do not include any costs which are the subject of existing orders with respect to interlocutory applications in the appeals.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.