Camenzuli v Morrison (No 2)

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Camenzuli v Morrison (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 62

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

14 April 2022

Decision date:

14 April 2022

Before:

Basten JA; Leeming JA; Payne JA

Decision:

(1)   The plaintiff pay the first, second, third and eighth defendants’ costs of these proceedings, excluding any costs incurred after 8 April 2022.

(2)   Dismiss all other applications for costs.

Catchwords:

COSTS – party/party – award in favour of jointly represented active defendants against unsuccessful plaintiff – claim by non-active defendants in same interest – principle favouring single award where parties in same interest – claim by proposed defendants on joinder motion which lapsed with rejection of primary claim – whether plaintiff should pay costs of motion – Local Democracy Matters Inc v Infrastructure NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 118 applied

Legislation Cited:

N/A

Cases Cited:

JE v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 243

Local Democracy Matters Inc v Infrastructure NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 118

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Matthew Louis Camenzuli (Plaintiff)
The Hon Scott Morrison MP (First Defendant)
Christine McDiven AM (Second Defendant)
The Hon Dominic Perrottet MP (Third Defendant)
The Hon Alex Hawke MP (Fourth Defendant)
The Hon Sussan Ley MP (Fifth Defendant)
Trent Zimmerman MP (Sixth Defendant)
The Hon Philip Ruddock AO (Seventh Defendant)
The Hon John Olsen AO (Eighth Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Robertson / A R Langshaw / B May (Plaintiff)
G O'L Reynolds SC / D A Ward (First, Second, Third and Eighth Defendants)
S Duggan (Seventh Defendant)

Solicitors:
Pryor Tzannes & Wallis Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Thomson Geer Lawyers (First, Second, Third and Eighth Defendants)
Clayton Utz (Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants)
Harpur Phillips (Seventh Defendant)

File Number(s):

2022/00074168

Judgment

1. THE COURT: On 5 April 2022 the Court dismissed proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, Mr Camenzuli. At his request, the parties were given an opportunity to seek costs and advised that submissions as to costs should be made within a tight timetable.

Costs of principal proceedings

2. On 8 April 2022 the plaintiff agreed to an order that he pay the costs of the first, second, third and eighth defendants (who were jointly represented). He resisted any order in favour of the other defendants who did not take an active role in the proceedings. He sought to be heard if some other order were sought by any defendant.

3. With respect to the costs of the principal proceedings, no order was sought by any other defendant within the times fixed for submissions, nor was any application for an extension of time received. However, on 12 April 2022, the first, second, third and eighth defendants filed a written submission asserting that the other defendants should also have an order for costs in their favour. Given that they had not applied for costs, the Court did not intend to make such an order, which was not appropriately sought on behalf of separately represented parties. The costs of the first,…