Heywood v Local Court of New South Wales (Costs)

The matter before the court involved a plaintiff, Heywood, who was successful in their proceedings against the Local Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around whether Heywood, as the successful party, was entitled to costs following the event, given the conduct of her counsel during the proceedings. The court was tasked with determining whether Heywood’s entitlement to costs was affected by any disentitling conduct on the part of her legal representative.

The primary legal issue for the court was to assess whether Heywood’s engagement of conduct, as evidenced by the behaviour of her counsel in Court, constituted disentitling conduct within the meaning of the principles established in Oshlack v Richmond River. The court needed to determine if the conduct in question was of a nature that would preclude Heywood from receiving costs as a successful party. This involved a careful examination of the conduct and its impact on the proceedings.

In its decision, the court found that Heywood's counsel's behaviour, while not exemplary, did not amount to the type of disentitling conduct contemplated by the Oshlack case. The court noted that Heywood herself was not responsible for the conduct in question, and thus, it did not consider her to be disentitled to costs. Consequently, the court concluded that Heywood was entitled to costs on an ordinary basis, as a successful party, and did not impose any additional financial burden on her due to the conduct of her counsel.

The final order of the court was that Heywood, the successful party, was to be awarded costs on an ordinary basis, without any additional penalty or adjustment due to the conduct of her counsel. This decision affirmed the principle that while counsel’s behaviour can be scrutinised, it must reach a certain threshold of disentitling conduct to affect a party’s entitlement to costs.