Purdon v Purdon [No 2]
Case
•
[2007] NSWSC 395
•27 April 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Purdon v Purdon [No 2] [2007] NSWSC 395
[2007] NSWSC 395
27 April 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties in the case were Purdon and Purdon, who were in dispute over the entitlement to interest on a judgment and the entitlement to costs, as well as whether taking of accounts should be ordered. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the party who was successful in the majority of the proceedings was also entitled to interest on the judgment, whether the party who was unsuccessful in the majority of the proceedings was entitled to costs, and whether taking of accounts should be ordered. The court found that where one party is successful in the majority of the proceedings, they are entitled to interest on the judgment, but where both parties are partly successful, the court has a discretion to order that interest be paid by one party to the other. In this case, the court found that the husband was successful in the majority of the proceedings and was therefore entitled to interest on the judgment. The court also found that where both parties are partly successful, the court has a discretion to order that costs be paid by one party to the other. In this case, the court found that the wife was entitled to costs as she was successful in her claim for spousal maintenance. Finally, the court found that taking of accounts should be ordered in order to determine the amount of interest and costs that should be paid by one party to the other. The final orders of the court were that the husband was entitled to interest on the judgment, the wife was entitled to costs, and taking of accounts should be ordered.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Entitlement to Costs
-
Account of Profits
-
Issue Estoppel
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Purdon v Purdon [No 2] [2007] NSWSC 395
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
3