Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 5)

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 5) [2025] NSWCA 149
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 11 July 2025
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Before: Mitchelmore JA; McHugh JA; Ball JA
Decision:

Applicant pay first respondents $24,000.00 (inclusive of GST) in respect of the first respondents’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025

Catchwords:

COSTS – gross sum costs order – assessment of gross sum – no issue of principle – order made

Cases Cited:

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119

Hamod v State of NSW [2011] NSWCA 375

Idoport Pty Limited v NAB, Idoport Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus [2007] NSWSC 23

Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 4) [2025] NSWCA 106

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99

Category:Costs
Parties: Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Darren and Rosaline Mitchell (First Respondents)
Roads and Maritime Services (now known as Transport for NSW) (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Coshott (Applicant, with leave)
H Cooper (First Respondents)

Solicitors:
Ironbridge Legal (First Respondents)
File Number(s): 2024/351500
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Court of Appeal
Citation:

Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Darren Mitchell [2025] NSWCA 27 and Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Darren Mitchell (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 33

Date of Decision:
28 February 2025 and 10 March 2025
Before:
Griffiths AJA
File Number(s):
2024/351500

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: On 21 May 2025, the Court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondents (the Mitchells) of a notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025 on an indemnity basis and that the amount of those costs be fixed as a gross sum: see Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 4) [2025] NSWCA 106. The notice of motion sought a review of a decision of Griffiths AJA delivered on 28 February 2025 by which his Honour ordered that (1) the applicant provide security in the amount of $70,022.50 in respect of an appeal from orders made by the primary judge (McGrath J) on 20 September 2024 and 11 December 2024; (2) a gross sum costs order made by the primary judge against the applicant in favour of the Mitchells in the amount of $134,607.95 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal against that order; and (3) the applicant pay the Mitchells’ costs of the motions before his Honour on an indemnity basis and fixed in a gross sum of $69,336.33 (plus GST) and that those costs be paid within 28 days.

  2. This judgment concerns quantification of the Mitchells’ costs. It assumes familiarity with the Court’s earlier judgment and uses the same abbreviations as used in that judgment.

  3. The Mitchells claim costs in the amount of $27,824.50 inclusive of GST. That amount is made up of the following amounts:

  1. Professional fees of their solicitors incurred in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 5) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWCA 149
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WCX Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought a gross sum costs order against the first respondents in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the assessment of a gross sum for the first respondents' costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to make a gross sum costs order and, if so, the appropriate amount to be awarded. The court was required to determine if the circumstances warranted departing from the usual basis of party-and-party costs assessment and to fix a lump sum to resolve the costs of the specific notice of motion.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that a gross sum costs order was appropriate in this instance, noting that there was no issue of principle involved in the assessment. The court considered the relevant factors for determining a gross sum and concluded that an award of $24,000.00, inclusive of GST, was fair and reasonable in respect of the first respondents’ costs for the notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant pay the first respondents $24,000.00 (inclusive of GST) in respect of the first respondents’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applicant pay first respondents $24,000.00 (inclusive of GST) in respect of the first respondents’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 11 March 2025

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.