Jo Maree Payne v Helen Mary Rowe (No 2)

The appeal was brought by Jo Maree Payne against Helen Mary Rowe, and was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case centred around a dispute over the respective interests of the parties in a property. The proceedings began when Payne made an application under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919, seeking a declaration of trust. However, the majority of the evidence presented was directed at determining the respective interests of each party in the property, rather than focusing on the original application. Ultimately, neither party was successful in their claims. Payne was also alleged to have provided deliberately false evidence during the proceedings.

The primary legal issue for the court was how to determine the costs of the proceedings under rule 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. This rule requires the court to consider which party in substance has won the proceedings, to determine who should bear the costs. Given that neither party was successful and that Payne was alleged to have provided deliberately false evidence, the court had to weigh these factors in making its decision.

In determining the costs, the court considered that neither party was the substantive winner of the proceedings. It also noted the allegation that Payne had provided deliberately false evidence, which was a serious matter. The court concluded that, given these circumstances, each party should bear their own costs. This decision was based on the principle that costs should follow the event, and in this case, neither party had a clear advantage in the proceedings.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the determination of costs. Each party was required to bear their own expenses related to the litigation.