Legal Research
Cases
Keane v Keane

Keane v Keane

Case [2025] NSWSC 1298 4 November 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keane v Keane [2025] NSWSC 1298
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 4 November 2025
Decision date: 04 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Bennett J
Decision:
The cross-claimant is to pay the cross-defendants’ costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the cross-claim, on the ordinary basis, forthwith.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Costs orders in interlocutory proceedings — Costs thrown away by an adjournment — No issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 189
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), pt 18, r 42.7(2)

Cases Cited:
Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 1; [2002] NSWSC 432
Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13
In the matter of Sunny International Hardware Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 348
Keynes Capital Global Limited v Guo (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 336
Netdeen Pty Ltd t/as GJ Gardner Homes v Lindfield NSW Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 218
Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 31
Yu v Cao (2015) 91 NSWLR 190; [2015] NSWCA 276

Category: Costs
Parties:
Julie Richmond Keane (Cross-Claimant)
Jason Stuart Keane (First Cross-Defendant)
Nicole Ann Keane (Second Cross-Defendant)
Philippa Emma Keane (Third Cross-Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
NJ Simpson (Cross-Claimant)
JAF Brown / D Woods (Cross-Defendants)
Solicitors:
McCullough Robertson (Cross-Claimant)
Blanchfield Nicholls (Cross-Defendants)

File Number(s): 2024/00410615
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On the second day of what was supposed to be the separate hearing of most of the cross-claim in this matter, I made orders, following an application by the cross-defendants, adjourning the hearing of the cross-claim to a later date.
This judgment concerns what cost consequences should follow those orders. In this judgment, I will tend to refer to the parties by their role in the cross-claim, rather than their role in the main proceedings.
For the reasons set out below, I have determined that the appropriate costs order following the adjournment of the cross-claim is that the cross-claimant should pay the cross-defendants’ costs thrown away by the adjournment, on the ordinary basis, forthwith.

Procedural background

The substantive proceedings and the cross-claim

A short chronology of the broader proceedings is necessary to understand what happened in these proceedings.
By a Statement of Claim filed on 5 November 2024, Jason Keane, Nicole Keane and Philippa Keane (the cross-defendants) commenced proceedings against Julie Keane (the cross-claimant) and a company known as Derek Keane & Company Pty Ltd (not a party to the cross-claim). The cross-defendants as plaintiffs seek various declarations that property held by the cross-claimant/first defendant and second defendant is held on trust for the cross-defendants/plaintiffs.
Without delving into the detail of what is pleaded in the Statement of Claim (SOC), a key component of the cross-defendants’ claims in the substantive proceedings is an allegation that Derek Keane (the cross-claimant’s now deceased husband and father of the cross-defendants) (the deceased) and the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Keane v Keane

Details

AGLC: Keane v Keane [2025] NSWSC 1298
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1298
Decision Date: 04 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Keane v Keane was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute between the parties centred on an application for costs in the context of an interlocutory proceeding. The applicant sought a costs order against the respondent following an adjournment that resulted in the costs being thrown away. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to recover costs despite the costs being effectively nullified by the adjournment. The court was required to determine the appropriate approach to costs in such circumstances, particularly where there is no underlying issue of principle at stake.

The court examined the principles governing costs orders in interlocutory proceedings and the circumstances that warrant a costs order being thrown away. It considered whether the adjournment resulted in the costs being effectively lost and whether this was sufficient grounds for awarding costs. The court noted that while costs are generally thrown away by an adjournment, there may be exceptional cases where costs can be recovered if certain criteria are met. However, in this instance, the court found that no such exceptional circumstances were present, and the adjournment had indeed resulted in the costs being thrown away. As such, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to recover costs.

The court's reasoning was grounded in established legal principles and the specific facts of the case. It determined that there was no issue of principle that warranted departing from the general rule that costs are thrown away by an adjournment. The court emphasised that while the applicant had incurred costs, the effect of the adjournment meant that these costs were not recoverable. Consequently, the applicant's application for costs was dismissed. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders