Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Herbertson v Morton 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2013] WADC 7 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Herbertson v Morton involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Herbertson, and the defendant, Morton. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the defendant to pay costs forthwith, as opposed to the usual order for costs to be paid at a later date. This issue arose out of the conduct of the defendant during the proceedings, which the plaintiff argued warranted an immediate payment of costs.
The court was required to determine whether the conduct of the defendant was such that it warranted an exercise of the court's discretion to order that costs be paid forthwith. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and that this warranted an immediate payment of costs. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the usual order for costs to be paid at a later date should apply. The court had to weigh the conduct of the defendant against the principles that guide the exercise of discretion in awarding costs.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant's conduct was indeed vexatious and oppressive. The court noted that the defendant had engaged in a pattern of conduct that was designed to delay and frustrate the proceedings, including making numerous procedural applications that had no merit and filing documents that were irrelevant to the issues in the case. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct warranted an exercise of its discretion to order that costs be paid forthwith. The court also noted that the usual order for costs to be paid at a later date would not be an appropriate punishment for the defendant's conduct, as it would not adequately deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
The court therefore made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs forthwith. The court also made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of any application made by the defendant in the proceedings. These orders reflect the court's view that the defendant's conduct warranted a strong response, and that an immediate payment of costs was necessary to deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
The court was required to determine whether the conduct of the defendant was such that it warranted an exercise of the court's discretion to order that costs be paid forthwith. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and that this warranted an immediate payment of costs. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the usual order for costs to be paid at a later date should apply. The court had to weigh the conduct of the defendant against the principles that guide the exercise of discretion in awarding costs.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant's conduct was indeed vexatious and oppressive. The court noted that the defendant had engaged in a pattern of conduct that was designed to delay and frustrate the proceedings, including making numerous procedural applications that had no merit and filing documents that were irrelevant to the issues in the case. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct warranted an exercise of its discretion to order that costs be paid forthwith. The court also noted that the usual order for costs to be paid at a later date would not be an appropriate punishment for the defendant's conduct, as it would not adequately deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
The court therefore made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs forthwith. The court also made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of any application made by the defendant in the proceedings. These orders reflect the court's view that the defendant's conduct warranted a strong response, and that an immediate payment of costs was necessary to deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs orders made
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.