Legal Research
Cases
Harper v Harper (No 2)

Harper v Harper (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWSC 360 15 April 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harper v Harper (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 360
Hearing dates: Written submissions on 7, 21 and 28 February 2025 and then on the papers
Date of orders: 15 April 2025
Decision date: 15 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Richmond J
Decision:
See [65]

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — General rule that costs follow the event — Application of the rule and discretion — No issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski; Avopiling Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (2018) 98 NSWLR 171; [2018] NSWCA 146
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (T/A Westmead Hospital) (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 21
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117
Diakou v Rouse [2019] VSCA 199
Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219
E Group Security Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of the State Revenue (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1296
Harper v Harper [2024] NSWSC 1540
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344
Monie v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 15
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Ryde Developments Pty Ltd v The Property Investors Alliance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 40
Wheatley v Lakshmanan (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 851
Ziliotto v Hakim [2013] NSWCA 359

Category: Costs
Parties: Brenda Harper (Plaintiff/Cross-defendant)
Troy Harper (First Defendant/First Cross-claimant)
Donna Harper (Second Defendant/Second Cross-claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
NJ Simpson (Plaintiff/Cross-defendant)
CD Freeman (Defendants/Cross-claimant)
Solicitors:
Bartier Perry (Plaintiff/Cross-defendant)
Streeter Law (Defendants/Cross-claimant)

File Number(s): 2023/00045263
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

These reasons deal with costs and an ancillary issue following my decision in Harper v Harper [2024] NSWSC 1540 (Judgment) concerning a transfer of vacant land at Port Macquarie (the Land) from the plaintiff, Brenda Harper, to her son, Troy Harper and his wife Donna Harper (the defendants).
For the reasons given in the Judgment, I concluded that (1) the plaintiff failed to establish that she was entitled to an equitable lien for the balance of the purchase price of $407,200 for the sale of the Land based, as pleaded, on an oral agreement for the sale of the Land for a purchase price of $540,000 reached at the end of September 2022 (the Agreement): Judgment at [115]-[121]; (2) the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants had made to the plaintiff the false representation as pleaded, being that the terms of the contract which she signed on 23 October 2022 reflected the terms of the Agreement: Judgment at [141]-[146]; (3) while an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harper v Harper (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Harper v Harper (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 360
Case: [2025] NSWSC 360
Decision Date: 15 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harper v Harper (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties, Harper, concerning family law matters. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary focus of the litigation was the allocation of costs between the parties, with each side contending for the other to bear the financial burden of the proceedings. The legal issues that arose required the court to determine the appropriate application of the general rule that costs follow the event, while also considering any discretionary factors that might influence the decision.

The court was tasked with interpreting the general principle that the losing party should bear the costs of the proceedings, and assessing whether any exceptions or discretions applied. The central question was whether the prevailing party was entitled to costs from the other party, and if so, in what amount. The court had to balance the general rule with any relevant circumstances that might warrant a deviation from the norm, such as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings or any other equitable considerations.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the general principle that costs follow the event was to be applied. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances present that would warrant a departure from this rule. Consequently, the court ruled that the prevailing party was entitled to recover their costs from the other party. The decision emphasised the importance of the general rule but also acknowledged the court's discretion to adjust the costs in light of specific circumstances. However, in this case, no such circumstances were found to warrant a variation from the norm.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the prevailing party was entitled to recover their costs from the other party, in accordance with the general rule. The court's decision underscored the principle that costs generally follow the event, but also highlighted the discretion available to the court in exceptional cases.

Orders