CITATION: Khouri v Nicholas (Costs) [2010] NSWDC 206 HEARING DATE(S): Written submissions to 17 August 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 2010JURISDICTION: Civil jurisdiction JUDGMENT OF: Johnstone DCJ DECISION: Orders as provided for in the judgment CATCHWORDS: INTEREST - calculation of interest under s 100 - COSTS - applications for special costs orders LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2004CASES CITED: Alamdo Holdings Pty Limited v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 7
AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274
Booksan Pty Ltd v Wehbe (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 103
Bowen Investments Pty Ltd v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 107
Colburt v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67
Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 120
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373
Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56
Furber v Stacey [2005] NSWCA 242
Hally v Dennis (1955) 95 CLR 661
Hogan v Trustee of the Roman Catholic Church (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 74
Knight v Clifton [1971] Ch 700Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 480
Liverpool City Council v Estephan [2009] NSWCA 161
London Welsh Estates Ltd v Phillip (1931)144 LT 693
Masha Nominees Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] VSC 56
Monie v Commonwealth (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 15
NSW v Stanley [2007] NSWCA 330
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
Re Hodgkinson [1985] 2 Ch 190
Roads & Traffic Authority (NSW) v McGregor (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 453
Rockdale City Council v Micro Developments Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 128
Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259
Trikas v Rheem (Australia) Pty Ltd (1964) 81 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 504
Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1111
Wentworth v Wentworth [1999] NSWSC 638
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
Williams v Lewer [1974] 2 NSWLR 91
Skalkos v T & S Recoveries Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 281
Smith v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 62
Xstrata Qld Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 358
Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 306PARTIES: Anthony Khouri (Plaintiff)
Joseph Nicholas (First Defendant)
Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited (Second Defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): 6141/08 COUNSEL: Mr M Sahade (Plaintiff)
Mr I Griscti (Defendant)SOLICITORS: Oliveri Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Martin Place Lawyers (Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
1. I delivered written reasons for judgment on 13 July 2010 in which I disposed of the substantive proceedings. I made an order that the unsuccessful parties pay the costs of the successful parties in any claim against them, but gave leave to apply for some other costs order or orders, provided any such application was notified in writing to the other party and the court within 14 days, specifying the order sought. Pursuant to that…
Continue reading Khouri v Nicholas (Costs)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Khouri v Nicholas (Costs) [2010] NSWDC 206
- Case
- [2010] NSWDC 206
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Khouri sued Nicholas, seeking compensation for breaches of contract. The case involved an application for special costs orders and the calculation of interest under section 100. Khouri argued that Nicholas was responsible for the costs of the application, while Nicholas contested this, claiming that Khouri's application was unreasonable. The court had to determine whether Khouri's application was unreasonable and whether Khouri was entitled to interest under section 100.
The court considered the criteria for determining whether an application was unreasonable. It noted that an application would be considered unreasonable if it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court found that Khouri's application was not unreasonable, as it was not frivolous or vexatious. The court also considered the calculation of interest under section 100, determining that Khouri was entitled to interest on the amount owed by Nicholas.
The court concluded that Khouri's application was not unreasonable, and Khouri was entitled to interest under section 100. The court ordered Nicholas to pay Khouri's costs of the application and interest on the amount owed. The specific amounts were to be determined by the Registrar.
The court considered the criteria for determining whether an application was unreasonable. It noted that an application would be considered unreasonable if it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court found that Khouri's application was not unreasonable, as it was not frivolous or vexatious. The court also considered the calculation of interest under section 100, determining that Khouri was entitled to interest on the amount owed by Nicholas.
The court concluded that Khouri's application was not unreasonable, and Khouri was entitled to interest under section 100. The court ordered Nicholas to pay Khouri's costs of the application and interest on the amount owed. The specific amounts were to be determined by the Registrar.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders as provided for in the judgment
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.