Ratkovic v Hadzic

Ratkovic v Hadzic was a case before the Supreme Court of South Australia where the plaintiff, Ratkovic, sought costs of and incidental to a notice of motion filed by the plaintiff. The notice of motion was subsequently withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement. As part of the settlement, it was agreed that the plaintiff would bear the burden of any order for costs made in favour of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff’s notice of motion. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to make a gross sum costs order against the plaintiff despite the settlement reached between the parties.

The court held that it was appropriate to make a gross sum costs order against the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the settlement between the parties did not prevent the court from making a costs order in relation to the notice of motion. The court further held that the term of the settlement that the plaintiff would bear the burden of any order for costs made in favour of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff’s notice of motion was valid and enforceable. The court noted that the settlement was not unconscionable and that the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement.

In making the gross sum costs order, the court considered the conduct of the parties and the costs incurred by the defendant in relation to the notice of motion. The court held that the defendant had acted reasonably in defending the notice of motion and that the costs incurred by the defendant were reasonable and necessary. The court also noted that the plaintiff had voluntarily withdrawn the notice of motion and that the defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing the costs order.

The court made a gross sum costs order against the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. The court held that this amount was appropriate given the conduct of the parties and the costs incurred by the defendant. The court further held that the term of the settlement agreement that the plaintiff would bear the burden of any order for costs made in favour of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff’s notice of motion was valid and enforceable.