Huang v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd; Tao v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd (No 2)

In *Huang v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd; Tao v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application by the first respondent, 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd ("18 Woodville"), to vary costs orders previously made. The appellants, Huang and Tao, were the opposing parties in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it had the power to vary its earlier costs orders under rule 36.16(3A) of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), and if so, whether it should exercise that power. This rule allows a party to apply to vary a costs order within 14 days of the order being made, provided notice is given to the court and other parties.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that rule 36.16(3A) provided a mechanism for correcting errors or making adjustments to costs orders within a limited timeframe. It found that 18 Woodville had complied with the procedural requirements of the rule, including giving notice of its application. Consequently, the Court determined it had the authority to vary the costs orders. The Court ordered that the requirement for filing a formal notice of motion be dispensed with, and it set aside the previous costs order to the extent it applied to 18 Woodville. The appellants were ordered to pay 18 Woodville's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis until 15 September 2022 and on an indemnity basis thereafter, as well as the costs of the application to vary the orders.