Kostov v Zhang (No 3)
Case
•
[2018] NSWCA 83
•26 April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kostov v Zhang (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 83
[2018] NSWCA 83
26 April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mr Kostov, sought to set aside or vary a costs decision made by the primary judge in proceedings against the respondents, Mr Zhang and others. The application was heard by Meagher and Payne JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in their costs decision. Specifically, the court was required to determine if there were grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the primary judge in awarding costs.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's costs decision, noting that the application did not raise any question of principle. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's notice of motion. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, and third respondents, either as agreed or as assessed by the court.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in their costs decision. Specifically, the court was required to determine if there were grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the primary judge in awarding costs.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's costs decision, noting that the application did not raise any question of principle. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's notice of motion. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, and third respondents, either as agreed or as assessed by the court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Kostov v Zhang (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 83
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
4
Adriana Kostov v FanFan Zhang
[2017] HCASL 52
Kostov v Zhang (No 2)
[2016] NSWCA 279
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18