Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 279
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 21 November 2018
Decision date: 21 November 2018
Before: McColl JA; Macfarlan JA; Leeming JA
Decision:

1. Vary order 4 made 11 September 2018 so that it provides:

 

“The respondent pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and in this Court, except the costs at first instance of the respondent’s motion filed on 28 June 2018 (and amended on 4 July 2018), which costs are to be paid by the appellants.”

 2. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the notices of motion filed 25 September and 2 October 2018.
Catchwords:

COSTS – whether separate hearing as to orders, to which no challenge was made, was separate event for purposes of costs – Calderbank correspondence – whether special costs order warranted

  JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – application to vary made after 14 day period prescribed by rules – no power to extend time – no power to accede to application
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rr 1.11, 1.12, 36.11, 36.16, 42.1
Cases Cited: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith (No 2) (2008) 75 NSWLR 462; [2008] NSWCA 133
Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 200
Hills Central Pty Limited v Anthony Gerard Hagerty & Catherine Elizabeth Hagerty t/a the Executors of the Estate of the late Gladys Delores Hagerty (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1109
Majak v Rose (No 4) (2017) 94 NSWLR 763; [2017] NSWCA 170
Malouf v Prince (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 51
Texts Cited: None
Category:Costs
Parties: Anthony Gerard Hagerty & Catherine Elizabeth Hagerty as Executors of the Estate of the late Gladys Delores Hagerty (Appellants) 
Hills Central Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

G Farland (Appellants) 
G P Gee (Respondent) 

 

Solicitors:

  Lamrocks Solicitors (Appellants) 
Blackstone Waterhouse Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/193275
Publication restriction: None
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:
[2018] NSWSC 789
Date of Decision:
31 May 2018
Before:
Slattery J
File Number(s):
2017/258219

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: By judgment delivered on 11 September 2018, this Court allowed the appeal by Mr and Ms Hagerty, set aside the judgment and orders made at first instance, removed caveats which had been lodged by the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and on appeal: Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 200. The sole issue on appeal, and in the substantial judgment at first instance, was whether the respondent Hills Central had validly exercised an option to purchase land granted to it by the deceased parents of the appellants. Subsequent to the hearing at which it was held at first instance that Hills Central had validly exercised that option, there was a second hearing, arising out of a separate interlocutory dispute concerning the working out of the order for specific performance which the respondent had obtained:

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWCA 279
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application to vary an earlier costs order. The dispute arose from an appeal concerning the costs of proceedings in the primary court and the Court of Appeal itself, including the costs of a specific motion.

The Court was required to determine whether a separate hearing regarding costs orders, to which no challenge was made, constituted a separate event for the purposes of awarding costs. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether a special costs order was warranted in light of *Calderbank* correspondence. The Court also addressed an application to vary an order made after the expiry of the 14-day period prescribed by the rules for such applications.

The Court of Appeal held that the separate hearing as to costs orders was not a separate event for the purposes of costs. It found no basis for a special costs order. Furthermore, the Court determined that it lacked the power to extend the time for an application to vary an order made after the prescribed 14-day period, and therefore could not accede to the application.

The Court varied the order of 11 September 2018 to clarify that the respondent was to pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, with the exception of the costs of the respondent’s motion filed on 28 June 2018 (and amended on 4 July 2018), which were to be paid by the appellants. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the notices of motion filed on 25 September and 2 October 2018.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Vary order 4 made 11 September 2018 so that it provides:

“The respondent pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and in this Court, except the costs at first instance of the respondent’s motion filed on 28 June 2018 (and amended on 4 July 2018), which costs are to be paid by the appellants.”

2. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the notices of motion filed 25 September and 2 October 2018.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.