Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2022] NSWCA 61 Hearing dates: 7 April 2022 Date of orders: 13 April 2022 Decision date: 13 April 2022 Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [27];
White JA at [28]Decision: Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – application for leave to appeal – where alleged that primary judge had overlooked and or not dealt with a particular argument in relation to costs – where it had been open to the applicant for leave to have approached the primary judge pursuant to UCPR 36.16 to vary or set aside her order by reference to the argument not addressed – where that course not taken – where it was not possible for the Court of Appeal finally to dispose of the issue without remitting proceedings to the District Court – where the interests of justice did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 60, 98(4)(b)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) s 364
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) s 172(1)(a)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.16, 42.35
Cases Cited: Consolidated Lawyers Ltd v Abu-Mahmoud; Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Ltd [2016] NSWCA 4
Crawley v Short [2009] NSWCA 410; (2009) 262 ALR 654
eInduct Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 451; [2015] NSWCA 284
Miller Heiman Pty Ltd v Sales Principles Pty Ltd (2017) 94 NSWLR 500; [2017] NSWCA 106
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Roluke Pty Ltd v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 21
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jandson Pty Limited (Applicant)
John Edmonds (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Klooster with F Clark (Applicant)
P Dodson (Respondent)
Michael Atkinson & Associates (Applicant)
Elias Gates (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/344233 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 25 October 2021
- Before:
- E Olsson SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2018/324418
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Jandson Pty Limited (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge to award Mr John Edmonds (the respondent) his costs on the ordinary basis following an award to him of damages in the sum of $24,282.75 (excluding interest) in proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales in a claim relating to building defects in the respondent’s home. The applicant for leave to appeal was the respondent’s builder.
The trial leading to the award of damages ran for six days with the respondent originally claiming damages in the sum of $610,501. The sum awarded was approximately 4 per cent of this amount.
The respondent succeeded at trial on the issue of brickwork in his home and, in particular, the defective mortar used in its construction. The primary judge accepted evidence led by the applicant that…
Continue reading Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2022] NSWCA 61
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 61
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted. This involved considering whether the applicant had exhausted available avenues to have the primary judge address the allegedly overlooked argument, and whether the interests of justice warranted the Court of Appeal intervening at this stage.
The Court of Appeal noted that it was open to Jandson Pty Ltd to have applied to the primary judge under rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to vary or set aside the costs order, by reference to the argument that was not dealt with. As this procedural step had not been taken, and given that the Court of Appeal could not finally dispose of the costs issue without remitting the proceedings to the District Court, the Court concluded that the interests of justice did not support the grant of leave to appeal.
Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, with costs ordered in favour of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
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.