Reid v Wright
[2014] NSWSC 929
•14 July 2014
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.
**********
Decision last updated: 14 July 2014