Richards v Cornford (No 2)

[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.”
**********