Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds

Case [2022] NSWCA 61


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:
M Klooster with F Clark (Applicant)
P Dodson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
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

Details
AGLC
Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2022] NSWCA 61
Case
[2022] NSWCA 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jandson Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of the primary judge concerning costs. The applicant contended that the primary judge had overlooked or failed to address a specific argument relating to costs.

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.