Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v E Group Security Pty Ltd (No 3)
Case
•
[2023] NSWCA 63
•11 April 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v E Group Security Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 63
[2023] NSWCA 63
11 April 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (appellant) sought to vary a costs order made by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in favour of E Group Security Pty Ltd (respondent). The dispute concerned an application to vary a previous costs order, which had been made following an unsuccessful appeal by the Chief Commissioner.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Chief Commissioner should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of its application to vary the existing costs order, despite the general rule that costs follow the event. This question arose in the context of a *Calderbank* offer made by the respondent.
The Court affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. The Chief Commissioner's application to vary the costs order was unsuccessful. The Court found no basis to depart from the usual order, particularly given the respondent's *Calderbank* offer, which indicated a willingness to resolve the matter on terms more favourable than those ultimately achieved by the Chief Commissioner.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the Chief Commissioner pay the respondent's costs of its unsuccessful application to have the previous costs order varied.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Chief Commissioner should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of its application to vary the existing costs order, despite the general rule that costs follow the event. This question arose in the context of a *Calderbank* offer made by the respondent.
The Court affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. The Chief Commissioner's application to vary the costs order was unsuccessful. The Court found no basis to depart from the usual order, particularly given the respondent's *Calderbank* offer, which indicated a willingness to resolve the matter on terms more favourable than those ultimately achieved by the Chief Commissioner.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the Chief Commissioner pay the respondent's costs of its unsuccessful application to have the previous costs order varied.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Slater v Ecosol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] SASC 29
Cases Citing This Decision
3
123 259 932 Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council (Costs)
[2023] NSWCA 99
Trinity College v Commissioner of State Taxation (No 2)
[2024] SASC 41
Slater v Ecosol Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2024] SASC 29
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
1
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v E Group Security Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWCA 115
E Group Security Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
[2021] NSWSC 1190