Schuller v S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2015] SASCFC 190
•10 December 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Schuller v S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 190
[2015] SASCFC 190
10 December 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Schuller (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria against a decision of a single judge. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability to pay costs to S J Webb Nominees Pty Ltd (the respondent). The appeal also involved the application of security for costs that had been paid into court by the appellant.
The Full Court was required to determine whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Additionally, the court had to decide the disposition of the sum of $15,000 that the appellant had paid into court as security for the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party typically pays the successful party's costs. In this instance, the appellant was unsuccessful in its appeal. Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. Furthermore, as the respondent had succeeded in the appeal, the court ordered that the $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for costs be paid out to the respondent's solicitors.
The Full Court was required to determine whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Additionally, the court had to decide the disposition of the sum of $15,000 that the appellant had paid into court as security for the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party typically pays the successful party's costs. In this instance, the appellant was unsuccessful in its appeal. Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. Furthermore, as the respondent had succeeded in the appeal, the court ordered that the $15,000 paid into court by the appellant as security for costs be paid out to the respondent's solicitors.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Ruzehaji v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2016] SASCFC 24
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Goldus Pty Ltd v Australian Mining Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2016] SASCFC 35
Ruzehaji v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2)
[2016] SASCFC 24
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59
CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board
[2009] HCA 47