Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (t/as Westmead Hospital) (No 2)

Case

[2024] NSWCA 21

12 February 2024


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (t/as Westmead Hospital) (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 21 [2024] NSWCA 21 12 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (t/as Westmead Hospital) (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered an application by the appellant to vary a costs order previously made in favour of the first respondent. The dispute arose from an appeal where the appellant had succeeded on one ground, resulting in an award of nominal damages, but had failed on all other grounds. The initial costs order had reflected the overall outcome of the appeal, favouring the respondent.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant's partial success, specifically the award of nominal damages, justified a variation of the costs order to grant costs in favour of the appellant, despite the respondent's substantial success on the majority of the appeal grounds. The Court was required to determine how the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied in circumstances where an appeal is allowed in part but the overall practical outcome significantly favours one party.

The Court of Appeal refused the application to vary the costs order. Their Honours reasoned that the general rule regarding costs is not absolute and that the court has a discretion to depart from it. In this instance, the Court found that the practical outcome of the appeal was overwhelmingly in favour of the respondent, notwithstanding the award of nominal damages to the appellant. The Court applied the principle that costs orders should reflect the overall success and the substantial issues determined in the litigation, and that a minor success on a single ground, particularly when resulting in only nominal damages, did not warrant disturbing the initial costs order that favoured the respondent.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the appellant's application to vary the costs order be refused, and that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the application to vary the costs order.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Employment Law

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Appeal

  • Remedies

  • Damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

14

Peek v Wheatley (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1089
Lewington v Dulyakarn (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 808
Cases Cited

16

Statutory Material Cited

2

Carter v Mehmet (No 3) [2022] NSWCA 64