Richards v Cornford (No 2)

Case [2010] NSWCA 112

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Richards v Cornford (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 112
HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
14 May 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Basten JA at 1
DECISION: Order that order 3 made on 10 May 2010 be varied by replacing the word “respondents” with the words “third respondent” such that order (3) made on 10 May 2010 and varied today will now read:
“Order that the third respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.”
LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 46(1)(a)
CATEGORY: Consequential orders
PARTIES: Danielle Richards (Appellant)
Ian Cornford (First Respondent)
Taringha House Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (Third Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2009/298373
COUNSEL: Ms S Norton SC, Mr M Daley (Appellant)
Mr J E Rowe (First and Second Respondents)
Mr S G Campbell SC, Mr J G Stewart (Third Respondents)
SOLICITORS: Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
John Carmody & Co (First and Second Respondents)
A R Connolly & Company (Third Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4344/2005
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Murrell DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 May 2009
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Richards v Cornford [2009] NSWDC 60




                          2009/298373

                          ALLSOP P
                          BASTEN JA
                      Friday 14 May 2010
RICHARDS v CORNFORD (No 2)
Judgment

On 10 May 2010, the Court made orders and published reasons in this appeal: [2010] NSWCA 99. The order for costs which was made was that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. This was in accordance with how the written submissions had been framed. However, the first and second respondents had not taken any active part in the appeal. The parties are agreed that the party responsible for the appellant’s costs is the third respondent (QBE). Therefore, by consent, the orders of the Court made on 10 May 2010 will be amended under the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46(1)(a) as follows:

          Order that order 3 made on 10 May 2010 be varied by replacing the word “respondents” with the words “third respondent” such that order (3) made on 10 May 2010 and varied today will now read:
          “Order that the third respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.”
      **********
Details
AGLC
Richards v Cornford (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 112
Case
[2010] NSWCA 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application to vary an earlier costs order made by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The appellant, Richards, sought to amend an order that had directed the "respondents" to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, to specify that only the "third respondent" was liable for those costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to vary the existing costs order to reflect a change in the parties' liability for costs, specifically to limit the costs order to the third respondent.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Allsop P and Basten JA, acceded to the application to vary the order. The court reasoned that the amendment was necessary to accurately reflect the parties' respective liabilities for the costs of the appeal. The court ordered that the original order of 10 May 2010 be varied by replacing the word "respondents" with the words "third respondent".

Consequently, the court ordered that the third respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that order 3 made on 10 May 2010 be varied by replacing the word “respondents” with the words “third respondent” such that order (3) made on 10 May 2010 and varied today will now read:

“Order that the third respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.”

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.