Good Samaritan Donkey Sanctuary Inc (GSDSI) v C E & S P Berry [No 2]
Case
•
[2007] NSWSC 397
•27 April 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Good Samaritan Donkey Sanctuary Inc (GSDSI) v C E and S P Berry [No 2] [2007] NSWSC 397
[2007] NSWSC 397
27 April 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by Good Samaritan Donkey Sanctuary Inc (GSDSI) against C E & S P Berry, arising from a dispute over costs orders made in earlier proceedings. The second defendant, S P Berry, did not appear when the earlier costs orders were made. The court was tasked with reviewing these orders and determining whether it was appropriate to make a costs order against the second defendant in relation to the principal proceedings and the application to vary the costs order.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the second defendant's absence when the earlier costs orders were made provided a sufficient basis for reviewing those orders, and whether it was appropriate to make a costs order against the second defendant in relation to the principal proceedings and the application to vary the costs order. The court considered the second defendant's lack of involvement in the earlier proceedings and the application to vary the costs order, as well as the fact that he had not participated in the appeal.
The court found that it was appropriate to review the earlier costs order due to the second defendant's lack of involvement. However, it was not appropriate to make a costs order against him in relation to the principal proceedings, as he had not participated in those proceedings. The court did find it appropriate to make a costs order against the second defendant in relation to the application to vary the costs order, as he had not participated in that application. The court ordered that the second defendant pay the applicant's costs of the application in the sum of $1500, together with interest.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the second defendant's absence when the earlier costs orders were made provided a sufficient basis for reviewing those orders, and whether it was appropriate to make a costs order against the second defendant in relation to the principal proceedings and the application to vary the costs order. The court considered the second defendant's lack of involvement in the earlier proceedings and the application to vary the costs order, as well as the fact that he had not participated in the appeal.
The court found that it was appropriate to review the earlier costs order due to the second defendant's lack of involvement. However, it was not appropriate to make a costs order against him in relation to the principal proceedings, as he had not participated in those proceedings. The court did find it appropriate to make a costs order against the second defendant in relation to the application to vary the costs order, as he had not participated in that application. The court ordered that the second defendant pay the applicant's costs of the application in the sum of $1500, together with interest.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1