Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 929 Hearing dates: 17 June 2014 Decision date: 14 July 2014 Before: Harrison J Decision: Order that the costs of the defendant's motion seeking a more detailed response to her request for further and better particulars be the defendant's costs in the proceedings.
Catchwords: COSTS - costs foreshadowed to be defendant's costs in proceedings - whether plaintiff should pay defendant's costs of a motion seeking a more detailed response to a request for further and better particulars - whether appropriate for a small proportion of costs to become the subject of a separate order Cases Cited: Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 795 Category: Costs Parties: Christine Reid (Plaintiff)
Diane Wright t/a D M Wright and Associates Solicitors (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
O Jones (Plaintiff)
B Phillips (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Greg Walsh & Co Solicitors (Plaintiff)
DLA Piper (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2013/234613 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: Ms Wright seeks an order that Ms Reid pay the costs of Ms Wright's motion seeking answers to certain further and better particulars that were requested concerning Ms Reid's claim. I determined the original dispute and foreshadowed that the appropriate costs order might be that the costs of the motion be Ms Wright's costs in the proceedings: see Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 795. I said the following at [15]:
"[15] The parties should if thought necessary bring in short minutes to reflect the orders I have foreshadowed. I propose to order that the costs of the motion should be the defendant's costs in the proceedings. If either party wishes to contend otherwise I will hear argument on the question of costs when convenient."
As I indicated in my reasons for judgment, the issues concerning the particulars had significantly narrowed by the time the dispute reached me. That clearly means that a significant proportion of the costs generated by the dispute and expended in correspondence and the preparation of affidavits and the like by Ms Wright was to a great extent balanced by the corresponding costs incurred by Ms Reid. Only a smaller proportion of the costs were incurred by reference to a disagreement that called for my adjudication.
My originally foreshadowed order would mean that Ms Wright would be entitled to recover costs incurred by her in this aspect of the proceedings if she is ultimately successful. Having considered the competing contentions concerning this issue, I remain of the view that my original thoughts about where the burden of these costs should lie was correct. It is not in my opinion appropriate that the small proportion of the costs referable to Ms Wright's success before me should become the subject of a separate order that they be paid by Ms Reid unless she is ultimately unsuccessful in her claims.
Accordingly, I order that the costs of Ms Wright's motion seeking a more detailed response to her request for further and better particulars should be Ms Wright's costs in the proceedings.
**********
- AGLC
- Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 929
- Case
- [2014] NSWSC 929
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the costs associated with Wright's motion were appropriately categorised as defendant's costs in the proceedings, and if so, whether these costs should be borne by Reid. Additionally, the court had to examine whether it was appropriate for a portion of these costs to be separately ordered, given the circumstances of the case. The court considered the conduct of the parties, the nature of the motion, and the principles governing costs in civil litigation, including whether the motion was necessary and whether Reid's request for particulars was reasonable.
The court found that the costs associated with Wright's motion were properly categorised as defendant's costs in the proceedings. It concluded that the motion was necessary and reasonable in the context of Reid's request for further and better particulars. However, the court held that it was not appropriate for a small proportion of these costs to become the subject of a separate order. Instead, the court determined that these costs should be included within the overall costs order for the proceedings. The court found in favour of Wright, ordering Reid to pay the costs of the motion, but within the overall costs order for the case.
The final order of the court was that Reid should pay the defendant's costs of the motion, but these costs were to be incorporated into the overall costs order for the proceedings. The court did not deem it appropriate to separately order a small proportion of these costs. This decision underscores the importance of the necessity and reasonableness of motions in civil litigation, as well as the court's discretion in managing costs orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.