Plassas v Person (No 2)

[2016] NSWSC 1515

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Plassas v Person (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1515
Hearing dates:	Written submissions
Date of orders:	28 October 2016
Decision date:	28 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Bellew J
Decision:	1.   The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings in an amount of $9,013.20. 2.   The costs in order (1) are to be paid by the plaintiff within 28 days of today.
Catchwords:	COSTS – Where defendant sought costs on dismissal of the proceedings brought by the plaintiff – Whether a gross sum costs order should be made – No point of principle
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Aquaqueen International Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 500 Bobb v Wombat Securities Pty Limited (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 863 Plassas v Person [2016] NSWSC 1445
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Con Plassas – Plaintiff Detective Senior Constable Christophe Person – Defendant
Representation:	Counsel:    P Lange – Plaintiff C McGorey – Defendant   Solicitors: Aquila Lawyers – Plaintiff Crown Solicitor for New South Wales – Defendant
File Number(s):	2015/363196
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. In a judgment delivered on 17 October 2016 I dismissed proceedings brought by the plaintiff which sought to challenge an order made by Magistrate Andrews in the Local Court requiring the plaintiff to submit to a non-intimate forensic procedure pursuant to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW): Plassas v Person [2016] NSWSC 1445. Upon delivering judgment, I gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions as to costs.

2. The defendant has provided short written submissions seeking a gross sum costs order in a sum of $9,013.20. The amount represents 70% of the defendant’s total costs and disbursements incurred in respect of the proceedings as set out in an affidavit of Peita Ava-Jones, solicitor, of 24 October 2016. Counsel for the plaintiff has informed me that the plaintiff does not wish to make any submissions in relation to costs.

3. There is no reason in the circumstances why costs ought not follow the event. The only question is whether any costs order should be made in the terms sought by the defendant, or whether an order should be made requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

4. Having read the affidavit of Ms Ava-Jones I am satisfied that the amount of costs sought is not excessive. It represents approximately 70% of the costs incurred, a proportion which is in and is consistent with what is frequently accepted by this Court as being appropriate: Aquaqueen International Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 500 at [30] per Black J.

5. Further orders for lump sum costs can be made in “very short and relatively straightforward cases” in which costs are modest and where pursuit of the costs assessment process might lead to unnecessary expense and delay: Bobb v Wombat Securities Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 863 at [6] per Beech-Jones J. In my view the present is such a case.

6. For all of these reasons, the order sought by the defendant is, in my view, entirely appropriate.

ORDERS

7. I make the following orders:

1. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings in an amount of $9,013.20.

2. The costs in order (1) are to be paid by the plaintiff within 28 days of today.

**********