Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Holland v City of Botany Bay Council (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1327 Hearing dates: Written submissions dated 15 September 2017 and 19 September 2017 Date of orders: 03 October 2017 Decision date: 03 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: By consent, Mrs Holland is ordered to bear the Council’s costs of the proceedings:
(1) Assessed on the ordinary basis up to 2 June 2015; and
(2) Assessed on an indemnity basis from 3 June 2015.
All exhibits and subpoenaed material may be returned forthwith; any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person that produced the material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal, or until any appeal has been determined.Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs – consent orders Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Holland v City of Botany Bay Council [2017] NSWSC 1120 Category: Costs Parties: Christina Holland (Plaintiff)
City of Botany Bay (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr M Daley (Plaintiff)
Mr D Kelly (Defendant)
Brydens (Plaintiff)
McCulloch and Buggy (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2014/174757 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
-
On 24 August 2017, I dismissed Ms Holland’s claim, indicating that unless the parties approached to be heard on costs, I would make the usual costs order in favour of the Council: Holland v City of Botany Bay Council [2017] NSWSC 1120 at [247].
-
The Council sought an indemnity costs order in its favour, relying on an offer of compromise which it had made to Mrs Holland under r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) in June 2015. This offer proposed that there be judgment entered in its favour, with each party to bear its own costs, evidenced by Ms Dawes’ affidavit sworn 24 August 2017.
-
Following the service of the Council’s submissions of 14 September 2017, Mrs Holland’s solicitors advised that she did not oppose the Council’s application “as detailed in their written submissions”.
-
In those circumstances, by consent, I order that Mrs Holland bear the Council’s costs of the proceedings:
Assessed on the ordinary basis up to 2 June 2015; and
Assessed on an indemnity basis from 3 June 2015.
-
I also order that all exhibits and subpoenaed material may be returned forthwith; any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person that produced the material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal, or until any appeal has been determined.
**********
I certify that this and the ……
preceding pages are a true copy of
the reasons for judgment herein
of the Honourable Justice Schmidt
DATE: ………………………………………….
ASSOCIATE: ………………………………
- AGLC
- Holland v City of Botany Bay Council (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1327
- Case
- [2017] NSWSC 1327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Holland was entitled to indemnity costs under the circumstances where consent orders had been made. The court needed to determine if the principle of indemnity costs, which typically applies when a party is required to pay the legal costs of another party due to the latter's conduct, could extend to situations involving consent orders. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the circumstances of the case warranted the award of indemnity costs despite the existence of the consent orders.
The court held that indemnity costs could be awarded in relation to consent orders if the party seeking costs could demonstrate that the other party acted unreasonably or in bad faith in the negotiation or enforcement of the consent orders. The court found that the City of Botany Bay Council had acted unreasonably and in bad faith, which justified the award of indemnity costs to Mr Holland. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that parties act fairly and reasonably in the context of consent orders to avoid unnecessary legal costs. Ultimately, the court ordered the City of Botany Bay Council to pay Mr Holland’s indemnity costs associated with the consent orders, reflecting the principle that parties should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other party.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.