Liberty Teal Griffin (by her Tutor Shelley Candice Griffin) v David Raymond Coe (both in his capacity as Executor of the estate of the late Phillip Mark Griffin and in his personal capacity) (No. 2)

Liberty Teal Griffin, represented by her tutor Shelley Candice Griffin, brought a claim against David Raymond Coe, both in his capacity as Executor of the estate of the late Phillip Mark Griffin and in his personal capacity, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved an application for summary dismissal and/or striking out of the statement of claim, followed by an application for leave to re-open the case. The court was required to determine whether costs should be payable immediately given that the defendant was successful in having part of the claim summarily dismissed.

The court examined the circumstances under which the application for summary dismissal and/or striking out was made. It also considered the subsequent application for leave to re-open the case. The key legal issue was whether the defendant should bear the costs of re-opening the case, considering the procedural history and the timing of the applications. The court evaluated the principles governing costs in such situations, including the overall fairness and the outcome of the applications.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant was successful in having part of the claim dismissed. The court considered the procedural steps taken and the eventual outcome of the application for leave to re-open. It concluded that the defendant's success in the initial application warranted an order for the costs to be paid forthwith. The court deemed it appropriate for the defendant to recover the costs related to the re-opening of the case due to the circumstances surrounding the procedural applications and their outcomes.

The final orders included the payment of costs by the plaintiff to the defendant, reflecting the court's determination that the defendant should recover the costs of re-opening the case. The court's decision was based on the procedural history, the success of the initial application, and the overall fairness of the costs allocation in light of the procedural developments.