Iacullo v Hillam

In the case of Iacullo v Hillam, the dispute involved a claim by Iacullo against Hillam for alleged breaches of contract. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core issue for the court was whether to grant summary judgment when the defendant raised a defence on the application for summary judgment that had not previously been pleaded and was inconsistent with the evidence provided.

The court examined the requirements for summary judgment, particularly focusing on the consistency between the pleaded defences and the evidence presented. The court also considered the defendant's actions in raising an inconsistent defence for the first time on the application for summary judgment. The court concluded that the defendant's late-raised defence amounted to a mere smoke-screen designed to avoid the inevitable outcome of the claim.

As for the costs, the court applied the general rule that costs follow the event. However, it noted that the defendant's issues were not genuinely contested but rather a tactical manoeuvre to avoid the inevitable. Consequently, the court decided not to award the costs of the failed application for judgment on admissions to the defendant. Instead, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for summary judgment.