Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse

In *Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning the allocation of costs between parties in a trial. The dispute involved a plaintiff, a first defendant, and a second defendant, with the core issue revolving around whether the second defendant should bear the increased costs incurred by the first defendant due to the second defendant's conduct during the trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a *Bullock* or *Sanderson* order was appropriate in the circumstances, and how the general discretion as to costs should be exercised. Specifically, the court had to determine if the second defendant's actions had caused the first defendant's costs to increase, and if so, whether the second defendant should be ordered to pay those increased costs, rather than the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles governing the court's broad discretion in awarding costs. It found that the second defendant's conduct had indeed led to additional hearing time and thus increased costs for the first defendant. Consequently, the court determined that it was just and appropriate to order the second defendant to pay a portion of the first defendant's costs.

The court ordered that the second respondent pay the appellant's costs of both the trial and the appeal. Furthermore, the second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent specifically in respect of three days of the trial proceedings. In all other respects, the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent for the trial and the appeal.