Gonzalez v Agoda Company Pte Ltd (No 2)

[2017] NSWSC 1236

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Gonzalez v Agoda Company Pte Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1236
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	14 September 2017
Decision date:	14 September 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Button J
Decision:	1. The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendant of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, those costs including the costs of the defendant with regard to its Notice of Motion filed 21 July 2016.
Catchwords:	CIVIL – costs – determined in Chambers – result of motion dispositive of whole proceedings – costs ordered of motion and proceedings
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Leonor Gonzalez (Plaintiff) Agoda Company Pte Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: R Royle (Plaintiff) T W Marskell (Defendant)   Solicitors: Stacks Gouldkamp (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/154172
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

          Background

1. At the conclusion of my substantive judgment dealing with a question of the exercise of jurisdiction, I reserved the question of costs: see [164] of Gonzalez v Agoda Company Pte Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1133. I also set a timetable for the receipt of written submissions from the parties, so that I could determine the question of costs in Chambers.

2. Counsel for the defendant provided written submissions, dated 8 September 2017, about the question of costs. Two points were made.

3. First, the defendant had succeeded on the interlocutory question raised by its Notice of Motion, and, in accordance with the usual rule, was entitled to its costs of that process as a result.

4. Secondly, that interlocutory question was in truth dispositive of the entire claim of the plaintiff in this Court. Accordingly, my costs order should extend beyond the costs of the motion, and encompass the costs of the entire proceedings.

5. On the same date, an email was received by my Associate from the solicitors for the plaintiff, to the effect that no submission would be made in response to the submission of counsel for the defendant on costs. Furthermore, the solicitors for the plaintiff did not seek a hearing with regard to the question of costs.

          Determination

6. To my mind, the uncontradicted submission of counsel for the defendant is correct: his client is entitled not only to its costs of the motion upon which it succeeded, but also to its costs of the proceedings as a whole, in light of the fact that my first order of 28 August 2017 brought the proceedings to a conclusion in a way that favoured the defendant and that was adverse to the plaintiff.

7. Contrary to the written submission of counsel for the defendant, however, there is no need for me to repeat that order; it is extant.

          Order

8. For those reasons, I make the following further order:

1.    The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendant of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, those costs including the costs of the defendant with regard to its Notice of Motion filed 21 July 2016.

**********