(1) Pursuant to UCPR r 20.24 the report of Christopher Wall is adopted in whole as to the quantification of the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis for the costs of the proceedings.
(2) Conformably with the referee’s report, the plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of these proceedings in the sum of $178,223.50.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the report fees of Mr Wall in the sum of $3,124 as set out in his memorandum dated 9 August 2024 within seven (7) days, together with interest payable from 28 days following 9 August 2024.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of this application.
Catchwords:
COSTS – referral of defamation trial costs issues to referee pursuant to UCPR r 20.24 – whether report should be adopted – whether costs should be awarded on the ordinary or indemnity basis – no issue of principle
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Prouten v Buxton (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Prouten v Buxton (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 445
Case
[2024] NSWDC 445
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Prouten v Buxton (No 2) involves the assessment of costs related to a defamation trial. The parties, Prouten (the plaintiff) and Buxton (the defendant), were engaged in a defamation dispute which led to the referral of costs issues to a referee. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the specific focus on the quantification of costs and the basis on which they should be awarded. The court was required to decide whether the report prepared by the referee should be adopted, and whether the costs should be awarded on the ordinary or indemnity basis.
The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, specifically rule 20.24, which governs the referral of costs issues to a referee. The primary question was whether the report of the referee, Christopher Wall, should be adopted in its entirety and whether the costs should be assessed on the ordinary or indemnity basis. The court also needed to determine the amount of costs to be awarded and the method of payment, including any interest that might accrue.
The court found that there was no issue of principle preventing the adoption of the referee's report in its entirety. It held that the referee's assessment of the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis was accurate and fair. The court adopted the report, ordering that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs in the amount of $178,223.50. Additionally, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the referee's fees of $3,124, along with interest accruing from 28 days after the referee's memorandum dated 9 August 2024. The plaintiff was also directed to cover the defendant's costs of the application.
In conclusion, the court adopted the referee's report and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, the referee's fees, and interest, as well as the defendant's costs of the application. This decision ensures that the parties' financial obligations are clearly outlined and enforceable.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Pursuant to UCPR r 20.24 the report of Christopher Wall is adopted in whole as to the quantification of the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis for the costs of the proceedings.
(2) Conformably with the referee’s report, the plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of these proceedings in the sum of $178,223.50.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the report fees of Mr Wall in the sum of $3,124 as set out in his memorandum dated 9 August 2024 within seven (7) days, together with interest payable from 28 days following 9 August 2024.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of this application.