Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg (No 2)
Case
•
[2009] VSCA 178
•13 August 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg (No 2) [2009] VSCA 178
[2009] VSCA 178
13 August 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd, sought to recover costs from the defendant, Rosenberg, under section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The dispute originated from an earlier proceeding where Rosenberg had been ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs 'of and incidental to' the proceeding. The plaintiff now sought to recover additional costs incurred in enforcing that order, arguing that the phrase 'of and incidental to' expanded the scope of the costs order. Rosenberg contested the application, asserting that the additional costs should not be covered by the original order.
The court had to determine whether the phrase 'and incidental to' in section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) broadened the scope of the costs order to include costs incurred in enforcing that order. The primary issue was the interpretation of the statutory language and whether it encompassed the costs associated with enforcing a costs order. The court considered whether the phrase 'of and incidental to' indicated a wider scope than the phrase 'of' alone.
The court held that the phrase 'of and incidental to' did not extend the scope of the costs order to include costs incurred in enforcing that order. The court reasoned that the phrase 'of' in section 24 was sufficient to cover all costs directly related to the proceeding, and the addition of 'incidental to' did not imply a broader interpretation. The court found that the additional costs sought by the plaintiff were not directly related to the proceeding itself but rather to the enforcement of the costs order. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the additional costs from Rosenberg.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for additional costs. Rosenberg was not required to pay the plaintiff’s costs associated with enforcing the original costs order. The court's decision clarified that the phrase 'of and incidental to' in section 24 did not expand the scope of the costs order beyond the proceeding itself.
The court had to determine whether the phrase 'and incidental to' in section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) broadened the scope of the costs order to include costs incurred in enforcing that order. The primary issue was the interpretation of the statutory language and whether it encompassed the costs associated with enforcing a costs order. The court considered whether the phrase 'of and incidental to' indicated a wider scope than the phrase 'of' alone.
The court held that the phrase 'of and incidental to' did not extend the scope of the costs order to include costs incurred in enforcing that order. The court reasoned that the phrase 'of' in section 24 was sufficient to cover all costs directly related to the proceeding, and the addition of 'incidental to' did not imply a broader interpretation. The court found that the additional costs sought by the plaintiff were not directly related to the proceeding itself but rather to the enforcement of the costs order. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the additional costs from Rosenberg.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for additional costs. Rosenberg was not required to pay the plaintiff’s costs associated with enforcing the original costs order. The court's decision clarified that the phrase 'of and incidental to' in section 24 did not expand the scope of the costs order beyond the proceeding itself.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Grusauskas v Panourakis [2025] VCC 649
Cases Citing This Decision
58
Pirrottina v Pirrottina
[2025] NSWCA 55
Arfaras v Vosnakis
[2016] NSWCA 65
Arfaras v Vosnakis
[2016] NSWCA 65
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg
[2009] VSCA 112
Rosenberg v Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd
[2007] VSC 101
Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2013] QSC 271