Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation (No 2)
[2016] NSWCA 215
•19 August 2016
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 215 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 19 August 2016 Before: Basten JA; Sackville AJA Decision: In addition to orders 1 and 2 made on 1 July 2016:
(3) Order that the applicants pay the costs of each respondent in this Court up to and including 1 July 2016.Catchwords: COSTS – leave to appeal – omitted order – costs to follow the event – no issue of principle Category: Costs Parties: Grant Mears (First Applicant)
Gloria Mears (Second Applicant)
Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation t/as Roseville College (First Respondent)
State of New South Wales (Second Respondent)
Helen Daphne Firbank (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr F F F Salama (First Respondent)
Mr G J Sarginson (Second Respondent)
Ms C O Gleeson (Third Respondent)
Applicants self-represented
AM Legal Solutions Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Lea Armstrong, Crown Solicitor NSW (Second Respondent)
Mervyn Finlay Thorburn & Marshall (Third Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/378516 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation t/as Roseville College v Mears [2015] NSWDC 348
- Date of Decision:
- 26 November 2015
- Before:
- Taylor SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2007/308335
Judgment
-
THE COURT: On 1 July 2016 the Court heard (and dismissed) a motion by the applicants to call further evidence and heard (and dismissed) the applicants’ summons seeking leave to appeal. Orders were made accordingly. However, no order was made as to costs.
-
Subsequent to delivery of the judgment on 1 July 2016, each of the respondents has applied for an order that the applicants pay its and her costs (respectively) of the proceedings in this Court. Each respondent filed written submissions seeking to justify an order that costs follow the event.
-
Those submissions should be accepted, there being no reason why such orders should not be made. In their written responses to the applicants’ summary of argument each respondent sought costs in the event that leave was refused. The applicants’ summary did not identify any legitimate basis upon which an order for costs should not be made in favour of the respondents, if the application were to be refused.
-
There is one qualification to this conclusion. It follows from the fact that when the Court made orders, without making orders for costs, none of the three respondents, each represented by solicitors and counsel, asked for costs. Had they done so, as patently they should have, the additional cost of the further applications would not have been incurred. Accordingly the orders for costs should be extend to costs incurred up to and including 1 July 2016 (being the date of the leave hearing), but not thereafter.
-
The Court makes the following order, in addition to orders 1 and 2 made on 1 July 2016:
(3) Order that the applicants pay the costs of each respondent in this Court up to and including 1 July 2016.
**********
Decision last updated: 19 August 2016
0
1
0